Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an appeal filed by a bank against an order of the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, which was delayed by 31 days. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal set aside this order, holding that Section 5 does not apply to appeals under Section 30 of the 1993 Act. The High Court reversed the DRAT's decision, relying on a precedent, and restored the Tribunal's order. The Supreme Court was approached to resolve the legal issue of whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to such appeals. The appellants argued against its applicability, while the respondents supported the High Court's view. The Court analyzed the scheme of the 1993 Act, noting it is a special law with specific provisions for limitation. It referred to a binding precedent, International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors., which held that Section 5 is excluded for appeals under Section 30, as the legislative intent is express and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply. The Court overruled the precedent relied upon by the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's judgment and the Tribunal's order condoning the delay, and restored the DRAT's order, with no costs awarded.
Headnote
A) Debt Recovery Law - Appeals and Limitation - Applicability of Section 5 Limitation Act to Appeals Under Section 30 RDB Act - Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, Section 30 - The issue was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals against orders of Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the RDB Act, 1993. The Supreme Court held that Section 5 is specifically excluded for such appeals, as the legislative intent for exclusion is express, and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply, making the prescribed 30-day period non-condonable (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order of High Court and order of Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning delay quashed and set aside, order of DRAT restored, no order as to costs
Law Points
- Exclusion of Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963 from appeals under Section 30 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act
- 1993
- Legislative intent for exclusion is express
- Application of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act does not arise
- Prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) cannot be condoned
