Dismissed

Nipco Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Central Bank of India

DRAT2 Dec 2024MISC APPEAL/178/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges the DRT's dismissal of condonation of delay for filing an appeal u/s 30 of the RDDB Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the tribunal held the 30-day limitation bar is absolute and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with no relief granted.

Nipco Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A. No. 786/2010 (Stay)

¶2

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 178/2010

¶4

Between

¶5

Nipco Manufacturing & Trading Company Ltd. … Appellant/s & Ors.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Central Bank of India …Respondent/s Mr. Yogesh K. Deshpande along with Mr. Pranav Rane, Advocate for Appellants

¶8

Ms. Somya, i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

-: Order dated: 02/12/2024:-

¶10

Aggrieved by the dismissal of Misc. Application No. 1/2010 in Appeal No. 1/2010 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT) vide order dated 06.05.2010, the appellants are in appeal under Sec. 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“RDDB Act”, for short).

¶11

The respondent Central Bank of India is the Certificate Holder (CH) against the appellants in the Original Application (O.A.) No. 208/2001 allowed by the DRT. Recovery Proceedings No. 1/2008 was filed by the CH to execute the Recovery Certificate. The appellants who are the Certified Debtors (CDs) filed an application (Ext. 28) raising objections about the attachment of the property which was dismissed by the Ld. Recovery Officer vide order dated 14.10.2009. Challenging the dismissal of the application, the appellants filed an appeal u/s 30 of the RDDB Act before the DRT.

¶12

¶13

The appeal was not filed within the stipulated 30 days and hence Miscellaneous application was filed by the appellants for condonation of delay. Vide the impugned order, the DRT dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of the application and hence in appeal.

¶14

The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the DRT was justified in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal u/s 30 of the RDDB Act.

¶15

The legal proposition of whether the delay in preferring an appeal u/s 30 beyond a period of 30 days is condonable by virtue of Sec. 20 read with Sec. 24 of the RDDB Act as well as Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is no longer Res Integra.

¶16

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 137 observed that the RDDB Act was enacted to facilitate and expedite recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions by summary proceedings before the statutory Tribunal. Section 18 bars the jurisdiction of any court or other authority in such matters (except the Supreme Court/High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution). Sec. 31 provides for the transfer of pending cases from a court to the Tribunal. The Act provides a complete procedure for the institution of recovery proceedings, and the method of its enforcement, including the right to appeal. The RDDB Act is undoubtedly a special law and a complete code by itself with regard to expeditious recovery of dues to banks and

¶17

¶18

financial institutions. After considering all the aspects concerning the application of the Limitation Act has also the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus:

¶19

“14. The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides that the legislature has provided for application of the Limitation Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under section 19 only. The appellate tribunal has been conferred the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days under Section 20 (3) of the Act. The proceedings before the Recovery Officer are not before a Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings before the Tribunal for anything under Section 19 only. The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent for exclusion was express. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period of 30 days under Section (1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer therefore, cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

¶20

The upshot of the discussions made above is that the DRT was perfectly justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Sec. 30 of the RDDBAct. The appeal is without any merits and is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

psa-01

¶22

Nipco Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nipco Manufacturing and Trading Company Limited v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ifci Limited versus M/S Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited & Ors.

Mr Rayed Merchant versus State Bank of India

Ms Viorica Hotels Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus M/S Chintamani Enterprises

Ms Shrinath Cotfab versus Canara Bank

Columbia Hospital and Research Center and Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Anr.