SURINDER MAHAJAN Vs. DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of aforesaid writ petitions raising identical issues in respect of power to condone delay by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') or the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Appellate Tribunal') in filing applications under Section 17 of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') or an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. In CWP No. 22567 of 2011, an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was dismissed relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. State Bank of India & others, AIR 2011 MP 205 that there is no power with the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay in filing of an appeal. However, in CWP No. 17894 of 2011 an application under Section 17 of the Act was dismissed being barred by 143 days of delay. Appeal against the said order has also been dismissed again relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. case (supra).

(2.) SINCE the question is purely legal, certain provisions of the Statutes i.e. The Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the 1993 Act) and The Limitation Act, 1963 need to be extracted at this stage. The same are as under:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents Banks argued that the Act is Special Statute and a complete code in itself. The period of limitation to file an application and/or the appeal provided in the Statute excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act as the extension of such provisions would defeat the very purpose of the Act that is speedy recovery of the debts. Reliance is placed upon Akshat Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & another Vs. Kalpana Chakraborty & others AIR 2010 Calcutta 138 and M/s. Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. case (supra).