Sec.5 of Limitation Act shall not be applicable to appeal against order of Recovery Officer as provided under Sec. 30 of RDDBFI Act: SC

Read Judgment: Avneesh Chandan Gadgil & Another vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce & Others

Pankaj Bajpai 

New Delhi, November 26, 2021: The Supreme Court has opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to appeal against the order of Recovery Officer u/s 30 of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (RDDBFI), 1993.

A Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah & Justice Sanjiv Khanna therefore quashed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) condoning the delay in preferring the appeal u/s 30 of the 1993 Act, preferred against the order passed by the Recovery Officer. 

The background of the case was that an appeal was filed against order passed by Delhi High Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the Oriental Bank of Commerce (first Respondent) was allowed and the order passed by the DRAT by which the DRAT quashed set aside the order passed by DRT condoning the delay in preferring the appeal u/s 30 of the RDDBFI, was quashed. 

It was the main contention that there was a delay of 31 days in the appeal preferred by the first Respondent against the order of the Recovery Officer. 

After considering the arguments, the Apex Court found that the issue involved in the present appeal is not res integra in view of the direct decision of this Court in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors. 

Dealing with the appeal u/s 30 of the 1993 Act, after the 2000 amendment, it was held in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company, that Section 5 of the limitation Act is specifically excluded so far as appeal u/s 30 of the Act, 1993 is concerned, noted the Court. 

The decision of the Court in the case of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal Vs. Jotheeswaran and Ors., which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been expressly overruled by Court in the decision in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited, added the Division Bench.

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Shah therefore concluded that the High Court has committed a grave error in setting aside the order passed by the DRAT and in restoring the order passed by the DRT condoning the delay in preferring the appeal u/s 30 by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act.