9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1165 - SC - Indian LawsPower of Tribunal to condone delay - Applicability of proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act to the disposal of an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act - Whether the Appellate Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of the said Act. - Held that - The change intended in SARFAESI Act has to be seen from the statute and not from beyond it. No doubt the period of limitation for filing appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is 30 days as against 45 days under Section 20 of the RDB Act. To this extent, legislative intent may be deliberate. The absence of an express provision for condonation, when Section 18(2) expressly adopts and incorporates the provisions of the RDB Act which contains provision for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, cannot be read as excluding the power of condonation. As already observed, the proviso to Section 20(3) which provides for condonation of delay (45 days under RDB Act) stands extended to disposal of appeal under the SARFAESI Act (to the extent that condonation is of delay beyond 30 days). There is no reason to exclude the proviso to Section 20(3) in dealing with an appeal under the SARFAESI Act. Taking such a view will be nullifying Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Even if power of condonation of delay by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act were held not to be applicable, the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act is applicable by virtue of Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act. This interpretation is clearly borne out from the provisions of the two statutes and also advances the cause of justice. Unless the scheme of the statute expressly excludes the power of condonation, there is no reason to deny such power to a Appellate Tribunal when the statutory scheme so warrants - no hesitation in holding that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal before it by virtue of Section 18(2) SARFAESI Act and proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act. - delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 20 (3) of the RDB Act read with Section 18 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. - Decided in favour of Appellants.
Issues Involved
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Act. Detailed Analysis 1. Applicability of Proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act to SARFAESI Act Appeals The core issue is whether the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act can condone delays in filing appeals by applying the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act. Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act mandates that appeals be disposed of in accordance with the RDB Act's provisions. Thus, the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act, which allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown, is incorporated into the SARFAESI Act. The judgment emphasizes that unless expressly excluded, the power of condonation should be available to advance the cause of justice. 2. Interpretation of Legislative Intent and Statutory Scheme The judgment refutes the Madhya Pradesh High Court's view that the absence of an express provision for condonation in the SARFAESI Act implies its exclusion. The court clarifies that the legislative intent behind the SARFAESI Act's shorter appeal period does not negate the applicability of the RDB Act's condonation provision. The principle of legislation by incorporation supports this interpretation, ensuring that the Appellate Tribunal can condone delays as per the incorporated RDB Act provisions. 3. Conflicting High Court Views The judgment addresses conflicting High Court decisions. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that condonation of delay is excluded by the SARFAESI Act's scheme, which the Supreme Court found erroneous. Conversely, the Andhra Pradesh, Bombay, and Madras High Courts allowed condonation based on Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court clarifies that while Section 29(2) may not absolutely apply, the SARFAESI Act's scheme does not exclude condonation powers implied by the RDB Act. 4. Tribunal as a Court for Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act The judgment explores whether the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act qualifies as a court under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Although the Andhra Pradesh High Court deemed the Tribunal a court, the Supreme Court finds it unnecessary to resolve this for the present appeals. The court concludes that the power of condonation is expressly applicable via Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act, rendering Section 29(2) inapplicable. 5. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act The judgment acknowledges that even if Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable, the principle of Section 14 (exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings) can apply. This aligns with the Supreme Court's decisions in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises and M.P. Steel Corporation. Conclusion The Supreme Court concludes that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act can condone delays in filing appeals under Section 18(1) by applying the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act. The contrary view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is overruled. The appeals by the borrowers are allowed, and the matters are remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The appeal by the Bank against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment is dismissed. Disposition All appeals are disposed of accordingly, with specific remands to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi for fresh adjudication.
|
