period of limitation. Date of knowledge as stated in the application is not satisfactory because from the impugned order dated 06.02.2024 passed by the Ld DM it appears that the copy of the order was also forwarded to the applicant. There is no probable reason to assume that the applicants did not receive the copy of the order dated 06.02.2024 from the office of the Ld Ot*1., more so, when it is issued by a government office. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in filing Section 17 application. According to Section 17(1), the period of 4S days is mandated to commence from the date on which a measure under Section 13(4) has been adopted. Applicant did not fite any Section 17 application as against 13(4) measure taken by the concerned bank. The applicant has moved to this Tribunal against D.M. order and which is also after the expiry of stipulated period as mandated in law. Judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. M/s. parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.s240 of 2oz2 arising out or SLp(c) No.6368/i012) and judgment of the Hon,ble High Court at Calcutta in of Akshat commerciar pvt. Ltd. vs. Katpana 1"-,i::,": Chakraborty are relied upon. ..,,^l"r incumbent on the part or the SA applicant to flle SA physically within 7 days trom the date of e_ nring as per Debts Recovery Tribunals ... Electronic Filing Rules, 2020 but the SA was fited on 06.04.2024. E-flling date is 22.03.2024 i.e. on the 45th day from the date of D.M. order. But the date of physical filing is. 06.04.2024 i.e. after 56 days from the date of alleged order of D.M. I am afraid the instant S.A. atong with the present I.A. is hopelessly barred by ltmitation. Hence, S.A. 297/2024 is dismissed being barred by limitation. The instant application being I.A. 4249 of 2024 ls as such also hit by limitation.
