AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. versus ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. on 24 November 2021

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in WritPetition (C) No. 4207 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein - Bank and hasquashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery AppellateTribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”) by which the learned DRATquashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunalcondoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of theRecovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993(hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1993”), the original respondent haspreferred the present appeal.

2. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrowcompass.

3. The short question, which is posed for consideration before thisCourt is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable tothe appeal against the order of Recovery Officer under Section 30 ofthe Act, 1993?

4. It is not in dispute that there was a delay of 31 days in theappeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 – Bank preferred against theorder of Recovery Officer. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned thedelay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The DRAT set A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aaside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning thedelay applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act observing that Section 5of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal under Section30 of the Act, 1993 against the order passed by the Recovery Officer.By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside theorder passed by the DRAT relying upon the decision of this Court in theBcase of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran andOrs., (2016) 16 SCC 588.

5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court restoring the order passed by theDebts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay applying Section 5 of theCLimitation Act to the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, the originalrespondent – Bank has preferred the present appeal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

D7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue involved inthe present appeal is now not res integra in view of the direct decision ofthis Court in the case of International Asset ReconstructionCompany of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of AldrichPharmaceuticals Limited and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 137. Dealingwith the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 after 2000 amendment,Eit is held that Section 5 of the limitation Act is specifically excluded sofar as appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 is concerned. Whileholding so, in paragraph 13, it is observed and held as under:- “13. The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are beforea statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly providesFthat the legislature has provided for application of the LimitationAct to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19only. The Appellate Tribunal has been conferred the power tocondone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act.The proceedings before the Recovery Officer are not before aGTribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedingsbefore the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusionof any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferringan appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that thelegislative intent for exclusion was express. The application ofSection 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the H

Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed periodof 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring anappeal against the order of the Recovery Officer therefore cannotbe condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the decision of thisCourt in the case of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal (supra),which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugnedjudgment and order has been expressly overruled by this Court in thedecision in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Companyof India Limited (supra).

9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaidcase and even otherwise considering Section 30 of the Act, 1993, weare also of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not beapplicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as providedunder Section 30 of the Act, 1993. Therefore, the High Court hascommitted a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order passedby the DRAT and in restoring the order passed by the Debts RecoveryTribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunalcondoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the Act,1993, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery Officer areunsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordinglyquashed and set aside. The order passed by the DRAT setting aside theorder passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is restored. Appeal isallowed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, there shall be no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H