MS. TINY THAPAR vs ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMP ANY (INDIA) LIMITED (ARCIL) on 27 October 2026

1. The respondent no.1 ARCIL filed O.A. bearing T.A. No. 150/2022 titled as **ARCIL v JCT Electronics Limited and others** which is stated to be pending before the DRT-III, Delhi. M.M. Thapar who is stated to be expired on 26.07.2019 was impleaded as defendant no.2 in the OA. The respondent no.1 after the death of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar filed I.A. bearing No. 672/2023 for substitution of legal representative namely Samir Thapar who was already impleaded as defendant no.3 in the Original Application. The respondent no.1 also filed I.A. bearing No. 347/2024 for substitution of LRs of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar namely Samir Thapar, Arjun Thapar, Tiny Kesang Lingsang Thapar and Priya Thapar. Thereafter another application bearing I.A. No. 1447/2024 was filed for substitution of other legal heirs of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar.

2. The DRT-III, Delhi vide impugned order dated 05.03.2025 has allowed these applications particularly the I.A. bearing No. 1447/2024 by observing that the provision of Order XXII CPC does not apply to the recovery matters under RDB Act and further observed that the Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act are not applicable. The DRT-III, Delhi observed that the substitution proceeding fall under Article 62 of the Limitation Act as the respondent no.1 after came to know about the death of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar promptly initiated the steps for bringing the actual legal heirs of the defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar on record. Accordingly I.A. bearing No. 1447/2024 was allowed.

3. The appellant being the wife of the defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar filed the present appeal. Sh. Rahul Sharma, Counsel during the course of argument has referred the list of dates as mentioned in the memorandum of appeal and argued that the first substitution application bearing I.A. No. 672/2023 was filed on 23.11.2023 and another substitution application bearing I.A. No. 347/2024 was filed on 26.03.2024 and third substitution application bearing I.A. No. 1447/2024 was filed on 18.12.2024. He further argued that all the substitution applications were filed after considerable delay and as per the mandate of Section 24 of the RDB Act, the delay in filing these applications cannot be condoned. He further argued that the OA is liable to be abetted against all the legal heirs except the defendant no.3 as the substitution application was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation as per Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act. It is also stated that in the second substitution application i.e. I.A. bearing No. 347/2024 the legal heir Sonia Thapar was not impleaded as she was not involved in the Management and operation of the GCT Group as on date. It is prayed that impugned order be set aside and the OA be ordered to be abetted against the legal heirs of the defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar.

4. Ms. Usha Singh, Counsel for respondent no.1 during the course of argument referred the order dated 02.11.2023 and argued that the factum of death of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar came to the knowledge of respondent no.1 only on 02.11.2023 when the Counsel for the defendant no.4 stated that the defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar has already expired on 26.07.2019 and thereafter the appropriate applications were filed. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 after hearing on 04.03.2024 sought information publically and came to know that the defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar was survived by his spouse namely Tiny Kesang Lingsang Thapar i.e. appellant and his two sons Samir Thapar, Arjun Thapar, defendant no.4 and two daughters Priya Thapar and Sonia Thapar, and she argued that the applications were within limitation.

5. It is reflecting that the respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing T.A. No. 150/2022 titled as **ARCIL v JCT Electronics Limited and others**. The defendant no.2

M.M. Thapar has expired on 26.07.2019. The Counsel of the defendant no.4 Arjun Thapar on 02.11.2023 informed before the DRT about the death of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar. The Counsel for the defendant no.3 has undertaken to disclose the surviving legal heirs of the defendant no.2 within one week. However, said details were not provided. It is reflecting that the respondent no.1 came to know about the death of the defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar on 26.07.2019 only on 02.11.2023. There was no earlier occasion for the respondent no.1 to know about the death of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar. The respondent no.1 on 23.11.2023 filed first substitution application bearing I.A. No. 672/2023 wherein only mentioned two legal heirs i.e. Samir Thapar and Arjun Thapar. The respondent no.1 also filed another substitution application bearing I.A. No. 374/2024 wherein mentioned the name of the appellant two sons Samir Thapar and Arjun Thapar and one daughter Priya Thapar but did not mention the name of another daughter Sonia Thapar. In third substitution application which was filed on 18.12.2024 the names of all the surviving legal heirs of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar were mentioned.

6. It is reflecting clearly that the respondent no.1 filed the application for substitution applications of legal heirs within 60 / 90 days even as per Articles 120 and 121 of the Limitation Act when the applicant came to know about the death of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar on 02.11.2023. Although in the first application the names of all the surviving legal heirs were not mentioned but in other two applications the names of the other surviving legal heirs of defendant no.2 M.M. Thapar were mentioned. The second and third application can be taken as the continuation of the first application bearing I.A. No. 167/2023. In these observations, the DRT-III, Delhi has rightly has observed that the applications were filed within the limitation. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 1447/2024 passed by the DRT-III, Delhi which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed along with pending application, if any.

sd - ----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**

-N