MISUKI EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R.S. Tripathi, J. (Chairperson) -
(1.) THIS is an application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal.
(2.) THE present appeal has been preferred against an order dated 11th November, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow in Appeal No. 4/05 upholding the order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar, D.R.T., Allahabad, who held that the appeal moved under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly stated as SRFAESI Act in this order) in the light of objections raised by office was liable to be rejected. The present applicants had preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 and the office of the D.R.T., Lucknow found the defects in the above appeal. The present applicants contested with regard to the defects raised by the office and consequently the Assistant Registrar, D.R.T., Lucknow passed an order dated 6th May, 2005 holding that the appeal moved under Section 17 was also barred by limitation. Against this order of the Assistant Registrar, the present applicants preferred Appeal No. 4/2005 before the D.R.T., Lucknow and the D.R.T. upheld the order of the Assistant Registrar and feeling aggrieved with this order of D.R.T., Lucknow, the present appeal has been preferred along with an application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The applicants have pleaded in their present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act that the present appeal has been preferred under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 read with Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 against the order dated 11th November, 2005 passed by the D.R.T., Lucknow. According to the applicants, the first certified copy of the impugned order was received by the Counsel of the applicants at Lucknow on 16th November, 2005 and he sent that copy to the office of applicant company at New Delhi by courier on 18th November, 2005 and it was received there on 21st November, 2005. After the receipt of the said copy of impugned order, it was sent to the office of the Director of the applicant -Company on 22nd November, 2005 for further action and on consultation with the Board of Directors of the company on 30th November, 2005 the Counsel for the applicants at New Delhi was consulted for further legal course of action.
(3.) ON 10th December, 2005 the Counsel at New Delhi advised that against the impugned order, appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, i.e. SRFAESI Act, 2002 would lie at Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, accordingly a draft of the appeal under Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act was prepared on 15th December, 2005 and the same was sent to the Counsel at Lucknow for his perusal and advice. On 18th December, 2005 the Counsel at Lucknow after going through that draft gave an opinion that the appeal under Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993 would lie to the Appellate Tribunal and not an appeal under Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act. According to the applicant -company thereafter Counsel for the applicants at New Delhi was not available due to winter vacation and he was available, he could be consulted only on 28th December, 2005 and thereafter it was found that certified copy of the impugned order dated 11th November, 2005, which was sent to the Counsel for the legal advice, was misplaced somewhere and could not be traced out/in the office of the Counsel. Then on 29th December, 2005 Counsel at Lucknow was instructed to obtain another certified copy of the impugned order to send the same immediately to Delhi. Counsel at Lucknow on 30th December, 2005 moved an application for another certified copy and it was prepared on 2nd January, 2006 and was received by the Counsel at Lucknow on 4th January, 2006;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.