LexINTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF A INDIA LTD versus THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 10 S.C.R. 199 INTERNATIONAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF A INDIA LTD. v. THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF ALDRICH PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. AND OTHERS (Civi1Appea1No.16962of2017) OCTOBER 24, 2017 [RANJAN GOGOi, ABBAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963: s.5 - D.elay - Condonation of- Applicability of s.5 to proceeding under s.30 of the RDB Act - Whether s.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be inFoked to condone B c the prescribed period of 30 days, under s.30( 1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, against an order of the Recove1y officer - Held: D 711e RDB Act is a special law and a complete code by itself with regard to expeditious recoFery of dues to banks and financial institutions - The fact that the Tribunal may be vested with some of the powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure does not vest in it the status of a Court - s.22( 1 ), in fact, provides that E the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedures under the C.P. C., and can regulate its own procedures in accordance with natural justice - s.5 of the Limitation Act provides that the appeal or application, with the exception of Order XX!, CPC may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the applicant satisfies the court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the application within F time - The pre-requisite, therefore, is the pendency of a proceeding before a court - The proceedings under the Act being before a statutory Tribunal, it cannot be placed at par with proceedings before a court - The Tribunal shall, therefore, have no powers to condone delay, unless expressly conferred by the statute creating G it - s.24 of the RDB Act makes the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable only to such an original "application" made under s.19 only - The definition of an "application" under r. 2(c) cannot be extended to read it in conjunction with s. 2(b) of the Act extending the meaning thereof beyond what the Act provides for and then make s.24 of the RDB Act applicable to an appeal under s.30( 1) of H 199 200 A B c SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R. the Act - Any such interpretation shall be completely contrary to the legislative intent, extending the Rules beyond what the Act provides for and limits - The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under s.30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent for exclusion was express - The application of s.5 of the Limitation Act by resort to s.29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise - The prescribed period of 30 days under s.30( l) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery officer therefore cannot be condoned by application of s.5 of the Limitation Act - Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - ss.19, 24, 30. Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, l 993: Object of legislation - Discussed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The RDB Act was enacted to facilitate and D expedite recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions by summary proceedings before a statutory Tribunal. Section 18 bars the jurisdiction of any court or other authority in such matters (except the Supreme Court/High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution). The Act provides a complete procedure for institution of recovery proceedings, the method of its E enforcement including the right to appeal. The RDB Act is undoubtedly a special law and a complete code by itself with regard to expeditious recovery of dues to banks and financial.institutions. The fact that the Tribunal may be vested with some of the powers as a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, regarding p summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses, discovery and production of the documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or documents, reviewing its decisions etc. does not vest in it the status of a Court. Section 22(1), in fact, provides that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedures under the C.P.C., and can G regulate its own procedures in accordance with natural justice. [Paras 9, 10] [204-F-H; 205-A-B] 2. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that the appeal or application, with the exception of Order XXI, CPC may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.