Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
GAUAIYA ADIK PEERJADE vs BANK OF BARODA on 25 February 2026
Presented on : 07.01.2026
Registered on : 08.01.2026
Decided on : 25.02.2026
Duration : Y M D
00-01-19
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
AT AURANGABAD
APPEAL DIARY NO.41 OF 2026
Gauaiya w/o Sadik Peerjade,
Age : 47 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Maheboob Nagar, Khorigalli,
Tq. & Dist. Latur ..Appellant
(Objection Petitioner)
Versus
1. Bank of Baroda,
Central Office, Aurangabad
Division, Aurangabad
2. M/s Favourite Color Lab.,
Prop. Mr. Sadik s/o Husain
Sab Peerjade ….Respondents
APPEARANCE :
Applicant : Mr. Sandeep B. Gorde, Advocate Respondent : Mr. Vivek B. Kulkarni, Advocate, Advocate No.1/Bank Respondent No. 2 : None
CORAM: DR. J.R. CHAUHAN, PRESIDING OFFICER
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
(Pronounced on : 25.02.2026)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the learned Recovery Officer – II, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.
2. The Registrar of the Tribunal has raised objection regarding limitation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent bank also submitted that the appeal of the appellant is barred by limitation and the issue of limitation is to be decided first as the said issue has been raised by the learned Registrar of this Tribunal.
4. I have heard both the parties on the point of limitation and gone through the written notes of argument submitted by respondent No.1 bank.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the present appeal is within limitation as the appellant, on enquiry from the
Advocate, got knowledge of passing of order dated 23.12.2025 and immediately on 23.12.2025, filed an application for certified copies, which were received on 01.01.2026 and in this case, the limitation starts from the date of receipt of the copies and he also made reference of Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “RDB Act”).
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant is apparently barred by limitation as the appellant herself filed the objections before the Recovery Officer and the same were dismissed on 23.10.2023 and the order was passed in presence of the present appellant and her counsel and therefore, the limitation period was of 30 days, whereas this appeal has been filed on 07.01.2026, which is barred by limitation.
7. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to make reference of relevant part of Section 30 of the RDB Act, which is reproduced hereunder:
“30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
*****”|
8. Admittedly, the present appellant filed Objection Petition in the Recovery Proceeding No.42/2020 before the Recovery Officer- II, DRT, Aurangabad. The Objection Petition was dismissed by the Recovery Officer after hearing the parties on 21.10.2023 in Recovery Proceeding No.42/2020 vide order (Exhibit-29). Therefore, the present appellant filed the objections and the same were heard by the Recovery Officer and after hearing the parties, the objections were dismissed on 21.10.2023 in presence of the appellant and her counsel. Therefore, the limitation period in this case is 30 days as per Section 30 of the RDB Act and not from the date of receipt of the copy of order. It was within the knowledge of the appellant that her objections were dismissed on 21.10.2023, but she did not prefer any appeal against this order and she moved for obtaining certified copies on 23.12.2025 after a gap of more than two years. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant is apparently barred by limitation. This is an inordinate delay in preferring the present appeal, which is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
9. It may be noted here that even Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceeding under Section 30 of the RDB Act and the delay beyond the prescribed period of limitation could not be condoned, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment delivered in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in 2017 (16) SCC 137, which has been rightly relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent bank in his written notes of argument on the point of limitation.
10. In view of above discussion and observations, the present appeal fails.
11. In the result, I pass the following order:
ORDER
(A) The Appeal Diary No.41 of 2026 is hereby dismissed as barred by limitation. (B) Copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Recovery Officer – II, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad. (C) The Registrar is directed to send a copy of this judgment and order to the parties. (D) File be consigned to the Record Room.
(Dr. J.R. Chauhan),
PRESIDING OFFICER,
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,
AURANGABAD
Aurangabad
Date : 25.02.2026