AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR.versusORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.

528                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    7 S.C.R. 528                [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A                  AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR.
                                        v.
                 ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2021)
B                            NOVEMBER 24, 2021
                [M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
             Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions
      Act, 1993: s.30 – Delay in preferring appeal under s.30 –
      Applicability of s.5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay – Held:
C
      s.5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal against
      the order of Recovery Officer as provided under s.30 of the Act,
      1993 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
D           HELD: 1 In the case of *International Asset Reconstruction
      Company of India Limited, while dealing with the appeal under
      Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial
      Institutions Act, 1993, after 2000 amendment, it was held that
      Section 5 of the Limitation Act is specifically excluded so far as
      appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 is concerned. Thus,
E     Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal
      against the order of Recovery Officer as provided under Section
      30 of the Act, 1993. [Paras 7, 9][530-D-E; 531-C-D]
            *International Asset Reconstruction Company of
            India Limited v. Official Liquidator of Aldrich
F           Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 137
            : [2017] 10 SCR 199 – relied on.
            2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal
      condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of
G     the Act, 1993, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery
      Officer are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. The order
      passed by the DRAT setting aside the order passed by the Debts
      Recovery Tribunal is restored. [Para 10][531-E-F]
            A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal v. Jotheeswaran and
H           Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 588 – referred to.
                                     528
 AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. v. ORIENTAL BANK                             529
              OF COMMERCE & ORS.

                        Case Law Reference                                  A
(2016) 16 SCC 588                referred to               Para 4
[2017] 10 SCR 199                relied on                 Para 7
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6898 of
2021.                                                                       B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.02.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4207 of 2015.
      Rajeeve Mehra, Sr. Adv., R. S. Rajiv, Anoop Prakash Awasthi,
Advs. for the Appellants.
                                                                            C
     Dushyant Parashar, Vipin Kumar Jai, Gurinder Jai, Achintya
Dvivedi, Bhagabati Prasad Padhy, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment     D
and order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No. 4207 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein - Bank and has
quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”) by which the learned DRAT      E
quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal
condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the
Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1993”), the original respondent has
preferred the present appeal.
                                                                            F
     2. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow
compass.
      3. The short question, which is posed for consideration before this
Court is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to
the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer under Section 30 of        G
the Act, 1993?
      4. It is not in dispute that there was a delay of 31 days in the
appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 – Bank preferred against the
order of Recovery Officer. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the
delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The DRAT set
                                                                            H
530             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 7 S.C.R.


A     aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the
      delay applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act observing that Section 5
      of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal under Section
      30 of the Act, 1993 against the order passed by the Recovery Officer.
      By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the
      order passed by the DRAT relying upon the decision of this Court in the
B
      case of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran and
      Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 588.
            5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court restoring the order passed by the
      Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay applying Section 5 of the
C     Limitation Act to the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, the original
      respondent – Bank has preferred the present appeal.
             6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
      at length.

D             7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue involved in
      the present appeal is now not res integra in view of the direct decision of
      this Court in the case of International Asset Reconstruction
      Company of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich
      Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 137. Dealing
      with the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 after 2000 amendment,
E     it is held that Section 5 of the limitation Act is specifically excluded so
      far as appeal under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 is concerned. While
      holding so, in paragraph 13, it is observed and held as under:-
             “13. The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are before
             a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides
F            that the legislature has provided for application of the Limitation
             Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19
             only. The Appellate Tribunal has been conferred the power to
             condone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act.
             The proceedings before the Recovery Officer are not before a
G            Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings
             before the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusion
             of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring
             an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the
             legislative intent for exclusion was express. The application of
             Section 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the
H
 AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. v. ORIENTAL BANK                                 531
        OF COMMERCE & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period     A
       of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an
       appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer therefore cannot
       be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”
      8. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the decision of this
Court in the case of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal (supra),                 B
which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned
judgment and order has been expressly overruled by this Court in the
decision in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company
of India Limited (supra).
       9. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid         C
case and even otherwise considering Section 30 of the Act, 1993, we
are also of the view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be
applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer as provided
under Section 30 of the Act, 1993. Therefore, the High Court has
committed a grave error in quashing and setting aside the order passed
by the DRAT and in restoring the order passed by the Debts Recovery             D
Tribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30
by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
       10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal              E
condoning the delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 of the Act,
1993, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery Officer are
unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly
quashed and set aside. The order passed by the DRAT setting aside the
order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is restored. Appeal is              F
allowed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall be no order as to costs.


Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal allowed.
                                                                                G




                                                                                H