caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 24 November, 2021Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, Sanjiv Khanna
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6898 OF 2021
Avneesh Chandan Gadgil & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors. …Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No.4207 of 2015 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 (hereinafter referred to as “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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1993”), the
Date: 2021.11.24
15:40:02 IST
Reason:
original respondent has preferred the present appeal.
1
2. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow
compass.
3. 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?
4. It is not in dispute that there was a delay of 31 days in the appeal
preferred by the respondent No.1 – Bank preferred against the order of
Recovery Officer. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by
applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The DRAT set aside the
order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay
applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act observing that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal under Section 30 of
the Act, 1993 against the order passed by the Recovery Officer. By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order
passed by the DRAT relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran and Ors.,
(2016) 16 SCC 588.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court restoring the order passed by the
2
Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay applying Section 5 of the
Limitation Act to the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, the
original respondent – Bank has preferred the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that 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., (2017) 16 SCC 137. 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. While holding so, in
paragraph 13, it is observed and held as under:-
“13. 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
3
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.”
8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the decision of this
Court in the case of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal (supra),
which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order has been expressly overruled by this
Court in the decision in the case of International Asset Reconstruction
Company of India Limited (supra).
9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case
and even otherwise considering Section 30 of the Act, 1993, we are 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.
4
10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds, 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 deserve to be quashed and set aside 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. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2021. [SANJIV KHANNA]
5
Comments