2004 (2) TMI 346 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).
2. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the application under section 31A(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
3. Nature of the application under section 31A(1) of the Act.
4. Requirement of filing an application to condone the delay.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT):
The revision petitioners contended that the DRT has no jurisdiction to entertain the application and issue a certificate as claimed. They argued that the application should have been filed within three years from the date of the preliminary decree, i.e., on or before 30-6-2000. Since the application was filed only on 28-1-2002, it was barred by time.

The first respondent bank argued that as per the Act, which came into force on 24-6-1993, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and thus, the application was rightly filed before the DRT under section 31A(1) of the Act. The bank also cited the case of Punjab National Bank v. Chajju Ram, where the Supreme Court ruled that the DRT has jurisdiction for execution of decrees involving amounts over Rs. 10 lakhs.

2. Applicability of the Limitation Act:
The revision petitioners argued that the Limitation Act is applicable to the application under section 31A(1) of the Act, and therefore, the application was time-barred. They referenced several legal precedents to support their claim that the Limitation Act applies to applications for final decrees.

The first respondent bank contended that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the application under section 31A(1) of the Act. They cited sections 17, 18, 22, and 31 of the Act to argue that the DRT has exclusive jurisdiction and that the Civil Procedure Code is not applicable.

3. Nature of the Application under Section 31A(1):
The court noted that the application under section 31A(1) of the Act is in the nature of an application for passing a final decree. The preliminary decree for sale passed on 10-7-1996 determined the amount due, and the application for the final decree should have been filed within three years from the date granted for payment, i.e., on or before 30-6-2000.

4. Requirement of Filing an Application to Condon the Delay:
The court observed that the DRT should have required the first respondent bank to file an application to condone the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act. As per section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications made to the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the first respondent bank should be given an opportunity to file an application to condone the delay in filing the application under section 31A(1) of the Act. If the application to condone the delay is allowed, the DRT can then issue the necessary certificate as contemplated under section 31A(1) of the Act. The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs, and the connected petitions were closed.

Order:
The first respondent bank is permitted to move the necessary application to condone the delay in filing the application under section 31A(1) of the Act. Upon considering and allowing such an application, the DRT may issue the necessary certificate for recovery of the amount due.

← Previous Next →