SAVIK VIJAI ENGINEERING PVT LTD Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an application filed under Section 22(2)(e) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to recall the Order dated 7.11.2005 to bring the property for sale in public auction by the respondent Bank by fixing the upset price of Rs. 25 lakh, and the sale proceedings shall be deposited with the respondent Bank in an interest earning No-Lien Account, and that would, be treated as the balance of the pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB & FI Act, 1993.
I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent Bank.
(2.) It appears that the petitioner herein had challenged the Order dated 7.11.2005 by way of filing Writ Petition in WP No. 18327/2006 before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court passed an Order on 21.12.2006 which runs as under:
Even though the petitioner has prayed the stay of the proposed auction to be held on 3.1.2007 at 11.30 a.m. by the 1st respondent at DRT, Hudson Circle, Bangalore, we are not inclined to stay the auction. However, it is directed that auction may take place but it shall not be confirmed until further orders from the Court.
As such, it is made out that the petitioner had already challenged the Order dated 7.11.2005 passed by this Tribunal. Therefore, the present Review Application is not sustainable.
It could also be seen that the order was passed on 7.11.2005 and this application to review the order dated 7.11.2005 was filed on 19.1.2007, and the same is time barred. Section 22(2)(e) states:
The Tribunal and the Appellate Tribune shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:
(e) reviewing-its decisions
As such, I am of the view that this Tribunal has got the powers to review its orders. But, there is no specific provision fixing time limit, for preferring review application either under the RDDB & FI Act, 1993 or under DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 as provided under Rule 5(A) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993. In the absence of any specific provision either under the Act or under the Rule, we have to fall back to the Limitation Act, 1963. The time limit prescribed under Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to review the judgment by a Court, other than the Supreme Court is only 30 days from the date of the decree or order. This application to review the Order dated 7.11.2005 is not filed in time and hence, it is liable to be rejected, as it is time barred.
(3.) IN the result, the Review Petition is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.