SHAIDUL ISLAM Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
LAWS(DR)-2014-1-5
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on January 06,2014

Shaidul Islam Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G. Rajasuria, J. - (1.) THE whole kit and caboodle of facts and figures that stood transpired from the records as well as from the arguments advanced on both sides could succinctly and precisely be set out thus - - The sons of the original deceased borrower petitioned DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging and impugning the notice issued by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the proceeding initiated by it. After hearing both sides, the DRT dismissed the application with the finding as under: The issue raised about ownership of applicants over the property vis -à -vis the claim of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7, cannot be adjudicated in an application under Section 17 by this Tribunal and hence it is left open with liberty to concerned parties to agitate the issue before competent Civil Court, if they so desire.
(2.) CHALLENGING and impugning the said order one Saidul Islam filed this appeal with delay, claiming to be an intervenor in the application before the Lower Tribunal. In respect of the factual matrix, this Appellate Tribunal is not concerned with, at present, in view of the point to be decided as to whether DRAT could condone the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act or not. The reasons found set out in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to the effect that there was delay on the part of the petitioner/appellant's Advocate in preferring the appeal as there were intervening holidays for the High Court and the District Court due to Durga Puja. The number of days delay also is not found set out in the application. The learned Counsel for the applicant placing reliance on the affidavit accompanying the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would pyramid his argument to the effect that the applicant could not file the appeal in time because there was some delay on the part of his Advocate in preparing the appeal papers due to Durga Puja vacation.
(3.) SECTION 29(2) of the Limitation Act is applicable to all Courts as well as the Tribunals having the power to adjudicate causes. The DRAT is not a mere persona designata. DRATs functioning under the RDDBFI Act are virtually exercising the powers of Civil Court in adjudicating the causes before them. Hence, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to such proceedings.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.