PONNUSAMY Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (This revision is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution against the final order dated 17.1.2008 made in I.A.No.166 of 2008 in O.A.(S) SR.No.511 of 2008 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore, dismissing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as not maintainable.

(2.) I have heard Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel for the second respondent-Bank.

(3.) ASSAILING the order of the Tribunal, Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, did not exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, expressly and that since the Tribunal is held to have the trappings of a Civil Court, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was maintainable. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal {2002 (5) CTC 436}, wherein the Full Bench, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Manguram Vs. Ram Prasad Gondamal {AIR 1976 SC 105} held that the Administrative Tribunals Act and the Rules issued thereunder (particularly Section 22 and Rule 17) do not expressly exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Full Bench held that the provision was applicable to a review application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of R. Balasubramanian, J., in N.M.Palanimuthu Vs. The Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn.) Department {1999 (1) CTC 534}, wherein it was held that the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, did not exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act and that therefore a condone delay petition was maintainable.