IFCI LIMITED Vs. DEV SPINNERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the application by filing the counter -affidavit. Mr. R.P. Aggarwal, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, has pointed out that the accompanying appeal has been filed against the interim order dated 2.5.2011 passed in S.A. No. 62/2011 whereby the possession of the properties in question has been directed to be restored to the SA applicants (respondents 1, 2 and 4 herein). He has contended that the said S.A. was initially filed against the secured creditor Bank, namely, the Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. (IIBI), which had assigned the debt with all the underlying securities to the applicant FI through registered assignment deed dated 25.4.2011 and the documents of the case were handed over to it. He has further contended that administrative clearance for filing the appeal took some time and thereby a delay of 20 days had occurred in filing the same, which was neither deliberate nor intentional.

(2.) MR . Pallav Saxena. the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has, however, contended that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act as has already been held by this Tribunal in various matters and as such the question of sufficiency of cause of delay has lost its significance. He has also placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgments of the Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts in M/s. Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Pvt. Lid. & Ors. v. State Bank of India & Anr.,, I (2013) BC 667 :, AIR 2011 MP 205 and Dr. Zubida Begum & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr., : I (2013) BC 67 : 2012(5) Current Tamil Nadu Cases 369 respectively, in support of his contention.

(3.) IN Dr. Zubida Begum's case (supra), a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, while agreeing with the views expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills (supra) and also considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, : AIR 1995 SC 2272, has observed that once it is held that the Tribunal is not Court, the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be available to the appeal filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and has also held that the appellate Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under the SARFAESI Act.