9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 132 - HC - Indian LawsCondonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - Limitation Act - Jurisdiction - power of Tribunal to condone the delay - whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of the proceedings under Section 19 of the 1993 Act? - maintainability of ex-parte order - Held that - It is well settled that the Limitation Act, 1963 is procedural law - In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 (7) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it has been held by the Supreme Court that law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature. In the present case, the Tribunal dismissed the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 9.8.2017 on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act as the application was filed after the expiry of two months - Similar issue came up before this Court in M/s Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited and others v. UCO Bank and another 2018 (11) TMI 532 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT , where this Court has held that the Tribunal had the power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act to the proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. From the plain reading of Section 24 of the 1993 Act and the judicial pronouncements, the inevitable conclusion is that the provisions of Section 5 of the 1963 Act are applicable to the proceedings/application filed under Section 19 of the 1993 Act before the Tribunal. Once it is so held, the provisions of Section 5 of the 1963 Act are applicable to the application, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay shall also be maintainable. The Tribunal has wrongly rejected the condonation of delay application filed by the petitioner for setting aside exparte order holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay - Matter restored before tribunal - petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of the proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tribunal's Power to Condon the Delay: The primary issue for consideration was whether the Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the 1993 Act). The petitioner sought the quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 15.3.2018, which dismissed the application for setting aside an exparte order dated 9.8.2017. The Tribunal dismissed the application on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Relevant Statutory Provisions: The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 17, 19, and 24 of the 1993 Act, and Sections 2, 5, and 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 24 of the 1993 Act explicitly states that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to applications made to a Tribunal. Judicial Precedents: The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, which established that the Limitation Act is procedural law. Additionally, the court cited the Full Bench decision in State of Haryana vs. Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, which held that if a special statute prescribes a period of limitation, it prevails over the Limitation Act, unless expressly excluded. The court also referenced the judgment in International Assets Reconstruction Company v. The Official Liquidatory of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd., where it was held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Court's Findings: The court noted that the Tribunal relied on the judgment in International Assets Reconstruction Company to dismiss the application for setting aside the exparte order. However, the court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation. The court referred to its own decision in M/s Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited v. UCO Bank, where it was held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, including Section 5, are applicable to proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, by virtue of Section 24 of the 1993 Act. Conclusion: The court concluded that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to proceedings under Section 19 of the 1993 Act before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay. The court quashed the Tribunal's order dated 15.3.2018 and directed the Tribunal to decide the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 9.8.2017 on merits in accordance with the law. Order: The petition was allowed, and the Tribunal's order dated 15.3.2018 was quashed. The Tribunal was directed to decide the application for setting aside the exparte order on merits before proceeding further in the matter.
|
