Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2015 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (1) TMI 319 - HC - Companies LawPower of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to condone delay - whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has power to condone the delay in filing second appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act - Held that:- In case the provisions of the Limitation Act are not expressly excluded and the period of limitation prescribed under the Special Act is different from the period that prescribed under the Schedule to the Limitation Act, then Section 29(2) would apply. In short, it is the contention of the petitioners that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply automatically to determine the periods under Special Law in case the provisions of the Limitation Act are not expressly excluded. Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the RDDBFI Act gives a discretion to the appellate authority to extend the time for filing statutory appeal. On the other hand, while enacting the SARFAESI Act, the parliament very consciously excluded the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to an appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The Legislature was aware of the factual position that in spite of constituting Special Tribunals to recover the public money, the Banks and financial institutions were not in a position to achieve the results on account of the time taken to complete the original and appellate proceedings and the ultimate execution proceedings. The Legislature therefore wanted a fast track method and machinery to recover the dues within a reasonable time. The failure to make a provision to extend the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot therefore be treated as an omission. Since the Supreme Court [1985 (7) TMI 347 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has already made the position very clear that the Tribunal under RDDBFI Act is not a Court, the question of automatic extension of the provisions of the Limitation Act to an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act would not arise. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 20 of RDDBFI Act indicates the legislative intent to extend the time limit for filing appeal. Similarly Section 24 of the said Act indicates the exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 to an application before the Tribunal. There are no such express provisions in the SARFAESI Act so as to enable the appellants to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. - Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act is in the nature of a clarification that the operation of some of the other laws are not barred. This shows that SARFAESI Act is in aid and not in derogation of other laws. In view of Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act it is not correct to say that the Limitation Act would come as an aid to the SARFAESI Act to recover the amount due to the Banks and Financial Institutions. The statement of objects and reasons, the preamble and the scheme of the SARFAESI Act would make the position clear that the Legislature consciously and intentionally excluded the applicability of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and consequently Section 5 to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. - Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not apply to an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and therefore Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be pressed into service to condone the delay in filing such appeal. - Decided against Appellant.
|