FEDERAL BANK LTD Vs. SADANANDAN K V
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE respondent filed Claim Petition in IA-2806/2004 before the Recovery Officer-1, of DRT, Ernakulam, and the same was allowed on 20.6.2005. As against the same, the appellant Bank filed Appeal No. 18/2005 before the DRT, Ernakulam, and there was a delay in filing the said Appeal and a separate application IA 1510/2005 was filed to condone the delay and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 18.8.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the Bank has preferred this Appeal.
I have heard the learned Advocates for the appellant and the respondent.
(2.) The application filed by the appellant to condone the delay in filing appeal under Section 30(1) of the RDDB Act, 1993, was dismissed by the DRT on the ground that the provisions of the Limitation Act, are not applicable to the Tribunal except for an application filed under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. The reason given by the Tribunal is, that the Tribunal is not a Court and it was constituted under Section 3(1) of the Act, and therefore, the Tribunal has no inherent power to condone the delay in filing the Appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act. The Tribunal had also observed that the definition of an 'Application' as provided under Section 2(b) of the Act, would mean an application made to the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Act, and the appeal filed under Section 30(1) is not an application within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act, and therefore, the Parliament never intended to make, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, applicable to any proceedings under the Act, except in relation to an application filed under Section 19 of the Act. The Tribunal also incidentally referred to Section 20 of the Act, which deals with appeal provision to the Appellate Tribunal. Sub-clause (3) of Section 20 states that every appeal has got to be filed within a period of 45 days from the date on which the copy of the order made or deemed to have been made by the Tribunal, is received by the party concerned, Proviso to the sub-clause also states that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an Appeal after the expiry of the said period of 45 days if it is satisfied that there is some sufficient reason for not filing within that period. No such enabling provision is available for filing an application under Section 30 of the RDDB&FI Act, before the DRT, and therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, is inapplicable.
The Authorised Officer of the appellant Bank has drawn my attention to Rule 2(c) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993, which states, "'Applicant' means a person making an application under Section 19 or under Section 31A and also includes an "applicant" who files an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act." Sub-clause (c) of RuIe-2 states, "'Application' means an application filed under Section 19 or under Section 31A and includes an "appeal" filed under Section 30(1) of the Act." This amendment came into being by the DRT (Procedure) Amendment Rules, 2000, with effect from 21.1.2003. On going through the Order, it appears that this amended provision was not brought to the notice of the DRT, which resulted in passing the Order that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to Section 30(1) of the Act.
(3.) THE learned Advocate for the respondent though not conceding the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the appeal filed under Section 30 of the RDDB&FI Act, 1993, is not able to present any objection to oppose the submissions made by the appellant.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.