Advocate Sushila
SUPREME COURT DECIDES WHETHER DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL CAN BE CONDONED
Advocate Sushila Ram 29 Nov 2021

SUPREME COURT DECIDES WHETHER DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL CAN BE CONDONED

In a recent case of Avneesh Chandan Gadgil and Another vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2021, a two Judge Bench of the #SupremeCourt comprising of J. M.R. Shah and J. Sanjiv Khanna passed a #Judgment dated 24-11-2021 on the issue, whether #delay in filing #appeal under the #Recovery of #Debts due to #Banks and #FinancialInstitutions Act, 1993 (1993 Act) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I (#DRT) can be condoned.


In this case, an Appeal was initially filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce, the Respondent herein, before the DRT against an Order dated 14-07-2011 passed by a Recovery Officer.

The said Appeal was filed by the Respondent-Bank beyond the period of limitation of 30 days as stipulated in Section 30 of the 1993 Act, with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the Appeal. The DRT condoned such delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, (Limitation Act), vide Order dated 05-06-2014. The relevant provisions are reproduced below for easy reference:

Section 30 of the 1993 Act: Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).

Section 5 of the Limitation Act: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases

Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.—The fact that the appellant or the applicant was missed by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

Aggrieved by the Order dated 05-06-2014 passed by the DRT in favor of the Respondent-Bank, the Appellants herein filed an Appeal before Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). The DRAT passed an Order dated 18-11-2014 and set aside the Order dated 05-06-2014 passed by the DRT on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act won’t apply to an Appeal filed before DRT against the Order passed by the Recovery Officer.


https://theindianlawyer.in/supreme-court-decides-whether-delay-in-filing-appeal-before-debt-recovery-tribunal-can-be-condoned/


#supremecourt #delay #appeal #recovery #drt #condone #limitation

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Featured Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com