MR ATMARAM SUNDER SAWANT vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 24 December 2020

1. No representation is made by the appellant either personally or through the advocate.

2. The Miscellaneous Application is moved by the appellant seeking to condone the delay in filing Appeal under Section 13. In the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Versus Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5013, it is held that the delay cannot be condoned. Paragraph 14 of the judicial pronouncement is reproduced hereunder: Paragraph 14:

14. The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides that the Legislature has provided for application of the Limitation Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19 only. The appellate tribunal has been conferred the power to condone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act. The proceedings before the Recovery officer are not before a Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings before the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent for exclusion was express. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery officer therefore cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. In view of the law laid down in the case of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals (supra), the Miscellaneous Application is not maintainable.

4. In view of the above, I pass the following order:

5. Miscellaneous Application No.30 of 2020 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sd/- Presiding Officer, D.R.T.No.2, Mumbai Dhawale