- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This writ petition has been made against the notice dated 31st May, 2007 by which it has been directed to pay the claim amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the recovery shall be made in accordance with the Recovery of Debt Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The next date fixed under the notice is 6th August, 2007. The affidavit of the particulars of the assets was directed to be filed on 6th August, 2007 and it appears that defendants/jds were directed to appear on 6th August, 2007 at 10. 30 a. m.
(2.) INSTEAD of making payment, the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner before this Court taking various pleas. So far as Section 30 of the Act is concerned 30 days is the period of preferring an appeal from the order of recovery of the debt as per the notice. Law prescribes 30 days period from the date of issuance of notice but not from the date of receipt. Therefore, if he files an appeal now, then it will be obviously time barred. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is not sure about the date of receiving the notice whether it has been done within the 30 days period specified or not. However, in the normal circumstances sometimes we condone the delay and send the matter to the authorities to consider the matter in merit but from Section 24 of the Act we find that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal. Mr. Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that such provision is not applicable in respect of Appeal under Section 30 but in respect of recovery of debt to be determined by the Tribunal under the original proceeding. Section 30 belongs to Chapter V wherein Section 24 belongs to Chapter IV of the Act. However, Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out before this Court that even in respect of the original appeal under Section 20, provision of Section 24 is applicable. In any event a further question has also been raised by Mr. Ravi Kant that the limitation is applicable only in respect of applications.
(3.) ACCORDING to us we should not proceed with a conservative outlook to understand the word 'application' about applicability of Limitation Act. It may not be artistic drafting of enactment but, by and large, it is established by adaptation that such Act is applicable in the proceedings before the Tribunal. A proceeding, unless described a suit, can be called as application. An appeal is a continuation of process. Therefore,when appeal lies before the tribunal under the above provision, Limitation Act applies in toto. In other words in one original proceeding, several interlocutory applications can be made, unless barred by law, no question of Limitation can arise but it arises only in a case of original proceeding and appeal. Thus, it is no more res-integra to say that application includes original proceeding upto appeal and vice versa. Therefore, in dismissing the writ petition we direct to file an appeal before the Tribunal with an application of condonation of delay for the purposes of appropriate redressal and disposal.;