Section 5 Of Limitation Act Is Not Applicable To Appeals Filed U/s. 30 Of RDDBFI Act – Supreme Court Reiterates
A two-judge Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna has held that Section 5 of Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer as provided under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act).
An appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court assailing the judgment of Delhi High Court which had allowed the appeal of Respondent No.1 (Bank) and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The DRAT had quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) condoning the delay in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act.
The issue which was dealt with by the Court, in this case, was whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act?
In this case, there was a delay of 31 days in filing an appeal by Respondent No 1. against the order of the Recovery Officer. The DRT condoned delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The DRAT further set aside the order passed by DRT observing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to appeal under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act against the order of the Recovery Officer.
The Apex Court relied on precedent International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors, where it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was specifically excluded so far as an appeal under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act was concerned.
"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," the Court observed.
Further, the Bench opined, "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."
In the light of these observations, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside and quashed the impugned judgment of the High Court, and restored the order of DRAT.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
