SUNIL GUPTA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application has been filed by the appellants under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 172 days occasioned in filing the accompanying appeal. The respondents have opposed the application by filing the reply.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Bakshi Uday Dip Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants/applicants and Mr. R.K. Dhawan, learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

(3.) MR . Singh, besides showing the cause of delay in filing the appeal, has also contended that though there is no specific provision in the SARFAESI Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 18 of the said Act, yet this Tribunal is fully empowered to condone the delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act as by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) thereof are applicable to a matter under the SARFAESI Act as the application of the Limitation Act has not been expressly excluded by the Act, In support of his contention, Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sajida Begum v. State Bank of India, : AIR 2013 AP 24 : I (2013) BC 24, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court while holding that the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India, : AIR 2011 MP 205 : I (2013) BC 667, does not lay down correct law and is in fact contrary to the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan v. C.P. Aboobacker, : AIR 1995 SC 2272, has ultimately held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is clearly attracted and thereby Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) of the Limitation Act would be applicable to the proceedings under Sections 17 and 18 of the SARFAESI Act and as such this Tribunal has power under Section 5 to condone the delay in filing the appeal.