Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Section 5 of Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer MANU/SC/1132/2021 - (24 Nov 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Avneesh Chandan Gadgil and Ors. vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The original respondent has preferred the present appeal dissatisfied with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Respondent No.1 herein - Bank and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( “DRAT”) by which the learned DRAT quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 ( “the Act, 1993”). 
The short question, which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the Act, 1993? 
The issue involved in the present appeal is now not res integra in view of the direct decision of this Court in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors. Dealing with the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 after 2000 amendment, it is held that Section 5 of the limitation Act is specifically excluded so far as appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 is concerned. 
Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case and even otherwise considering Section 30 of the Act, 1993, present Court is also of the view that, Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Act, 1993. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the DRAT and in restoring the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery Officer are unsustainable and are accordingly quashed and set aside. The order passed by the DRAT setting aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is restored. Appeal is allowed accordingly.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Applicability, Provision, Delay, Condonation</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>