BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL versus BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 05-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 9 S.C.R. 1 
BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL 
A 
V. 
BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.5924 of 2015 etc.) 
B 
AUGUST 05, 2015 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets c 
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - s. 18(2) -
Appellate Tribunal - Power of - To condone delay in filing 
appeal u/s.18(1) of the Act- Held: s. 18(2) provides that the 
Tribunal under the Act has to dispose of an appeal in 
accordance with the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to D 
Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Thus the proviso 
to s. 20(3) of the 1993 Act is applicable - Unless the scheme 
of the statute expressly excludes the power of condonation, 
such power cannot be denied to the Tribunal, when the 
statutory scheme so warrants - Principle of legislation by E 
incorporation can be applied- Therefore, the Tribunal 10has 
the power u/s. 18(2) rlw proviso to s. 20(3) of the 1993 Act to 
condone the delay in filing appeal uls.18(1) - Recovery of 
Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 -
s.20(3) proviso - Principle of legislation by incorporation -
F 
Delay - Condonation of 
Limitation Act, 1963: 
S.29(2) -Applicability of- To the proceedings under G 
Securities and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and 
.. 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002- Held: s.29(2) 
does not have absolute application - the 2002 Act impliedly 
excludes applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to the · 
extent a different scheme is adopted - Securitisation and H 
-
1 
' 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of 
Security Interest Act, 2002. 
S. 14 - Applicability of - Held: Prin_ciples under s. 14 
would be applicable to the appeal u/s. 18(1) of SARFAESI 
B Act, 2002, even though the provisions of s. 5 and 29(2) of the 
Limitation Act are inapplicable to such. proceedings -
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Finan<jal Assets and 
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - s. 18(1 ). 
• 
c 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of Section 18(2) of 
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets 
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 
0 (SARFAESI Act), makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal 
under the SARFAESI Act has to dispose of an appeairin 
accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts 
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (ROB 
Act). In this respect, the provisions of the ROB Act stand 
E incorporated in the SARFAESI Act for disposal of an 
appeal. Once it is so, there is no reason as to why the 
SARFAESI Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal 
beyond the prescribed period even on being satisfied 
that there is sufficient cause for not filing such appeal 
F within that period. [Para 8] (11-F-G] 
. · 2. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act has no absolute 
application, as the statute in question impliedly excludes 
applicability of provisions of Limitation Act to the extent 
G a different scheme is adopted. Exclusion of power of 
H 
condonation of delay can be implied. [Para 12] [14-B-C] 
Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. (1995) 5 
SCC 5; Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board vs. Central 
Electricity Regulatory Commission 2010 (4) SCR 680: 
(2010) 5 SCC 23; Commissioner of Customs and 
' ' 
BALESHWAR DAYALJAISWAL v. BANK OF INDIA& ORS. 
3 
Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited (2009) 
A 
5 SCC 791; Gopa/ Sardar vs. Karuna Sardar 2004 (2) 
SCR 826 : (2004) 4 sec 252 - relied on. 
3. Unless the scheme of the statute expressly 
excludes the power of condonation, _there is no reason B 
to deny such power to a Appellate Tribunal when the 
statutory scheme so warrants. Principle of legislation 
by incorporation is well known. [Para 8] [12-A-B] 
Ram Kirpal Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar 1970 (3) 
c 
SCR 233: (1969) 3 SCC 471; Boiani Ores Ltd. vs. State 
of Orissa 1975 (2) SCR 138: (1974) 2 sec 111; 
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. Union of India 1979 
(2) SCR 1038: (1979) 2 SCC 529; Onkarlal Nandlal 
vs. State of Rajasthan 1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 1075: 
D 
(1985) 4 sec 404- relied on. 
4. Section 22 of ROB Act vests powers of Civil Court 
on the Tribunal only for purposes mentioned therein, 
such as summoning witnesses, discovery and 
E 
production of documents, receiving evidence, issuing 
commission for examining witnesses etc. and deems 
Tribunals to be courts for specified purposes, such as 
for Sections
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.