Dismissed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Sbq Steels Limited

DRT29 Apr 2025TA/72/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing a review petition against an order dated 25.1.2024. The petitioner relied on illness and failure to collect documents for a 50-day delay, citing Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Standard Chartered Bank vs MSTC LTD and Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993, held there is no power to condone delay beyond the statutory 30-day period for review filings.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking condonation of 50-day delay in filing the review petition was dismissed, and the review petition itself was dismissed.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Sbq Steels Limited — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 29^th Day of April, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA

Presiding Officer

IA No.85 of 2024

T.A. No.72 of 2022

¶8

Cove Holdings Private Limited, Rep. by its Director Ms.Rupal Rai, Having Regd. Office at:No.5, Ethiraj Lane, Egmore, Chennai – 600008.

¶9

. . . Petitioner / 3^rd Party

¶10

Versus

¶11

Bank of Baroda,

¶12

Corporate Financial Services Branch, BOB Buildings, 2^nd Floor,

¶13

No.74, Thyagaraya Road, Near Panagal Park, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600017.

¶14

. . . 1^st Respondent / Applicant

¶15

Mr.Rajiv Rai, S/o Late Sri. Balwant Rai, New No.9, Old No.5, Ethiraj Lane, Egmore, Chennai – 600105.

¶16

Mr.Ritesh Rai, S/o Sri. Rajiv Rai, New No.9, Old No.5, Ethiraj Lane, Egmore, Chennai – 600105. . . . 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents/ 2^nd & 3^rd Defendants Counsel for Petitioner :- M/s. B.Aravind Srevastsa Counsel for 1^st Respondent :- M/s. NVS Associates

¶17

¶18

: - O R D E R - :

¶19

By the present application filed u/s 25 of the RDB Act r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the 3^rd party to the proceedings in OA is seeking condoning the delay of 50 days in filing the review petition against the orders dt 25.1.2024 passed by this Tribunal in IA -72/2023.

¶20

The application is accompanied by the affidavit filed by the Director of this 3^rd party Applicant. It is submitted that the IA-72/2023 was dismissed by this Tribunal on 25.1.2024. It is submitted that certain vital documents were not considered while passing the said orders and accordingly a Review Application bearing No-81/2024 is filed on 28.3.2024. The Applicant submits that she was unwell from the last week of January 2024 and February 2024 and that she was advised bed rest. She could not collect the documents and instruct her counsel to file the review in time and hence the delay.

¶21

There is a delay of 50 days and the same is not willful. It is submitted that the Applicant has fair chance in the review petition.

¶22

Counter is filed by the opponent bank. It is submitted that this Tribunal after considering the entire material on record dismissed the IA. Rule 5A of the DRT (Procedure) Rules 1993 provides the period of limitation as 30 days from date of order. Such a review should be on account of some mistake of error apparent on the face of record. The review cannot be accepted beyond the period of limitation as per Rule 5 A(2) and it is also submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is of no avail to the Applicant. The Ld Counsel for the opponent bank had also relied on Standard Chartered Bank vs MSTC LTD (2020 INSC 72) to urged that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay.

¶23

¶24

Heard the Ld Counsel on either side.

¶25

The only ground urged is that the deponent Ms.Rupal Rai was advised bed rest and she was unwell. This contention is not supported by any documents like the medical certificate. Apart from the above the position of Law is made clear in Standard Chartered Bank (supra) which reads as under;

¶26

“.. 14) The peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay . We may also note that Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 04.11.2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear: one, whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as it contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation – otherwise they would not be maintainable…”

¶27

In view of the Ruling relied by the Ld Counsel for the opponent bank, this Tribunal cannot exercise the discretion of condoning the delay and finds no merits to entertain the present IA for condoning the delay. Accordingly the following ;

¶28

IA-85/2024 seeking condoning the delay in filing the review petition stands dismissed. Consequently the review petition unnumbered also stands dismissed.

¶29

Sd/- (A.S.JAYACHANDRA)

¶30

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶31

(Dictated to Assistant who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this 29^th Day of April, 2025)

¶32

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Sbq Steels Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S Sbq Steels Limited

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

Indian Bank versus Ms Southern Batteries Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Thangeswari versus City Union Bank Limited

Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Science and Technology Trust versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank versus Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd.

K Paramasivam versus Karur Vysya Bank

Indian Bank versus Gmr Rajahmundry Energy Limited