AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. versus ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 24-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR.
v.
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6898 of 2021)
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:
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
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,
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
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
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
Ors., (2016) 16 SCC 588 – referred to.
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 528
528
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
Case Law Reference
(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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
AVNEESH CHANDAN GADGIL & ANR. v. ORIENTAL BANK
OF COMMERCE & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
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
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 t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.