Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Mr. Nimish s/o Satish Deopujari, Mr. Satish s/o Shankarrao Deopujari, and Sau. Vandana w/o Satish Deopujari, filed an Appeal Against Order before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging an order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Court of District Judge – 12, Nagpur, which condoned a delay of 25 days in filing an application under Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (MPID Act). The appellants were respondents before the Designated Court under the MPID Act. A criminal case was registered against them for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under the MPID Act, Section 34 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Money Lending Act, and Section 45 of the Reserve Bank Act. During investigation, their properties were seized, and a charge sheet was filed. The respondent, State of Maharashtra, filed Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 153 of 2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing an application under Section 5(3) of the MPID Act before the Designated Court. The Designated Court allowed the application, relying on the Madras High Court judgment in N. Vanjimuthu vs. Competent Authority and Commissioner of Land Administrator. The appellants contended that the Designated Court had no power to condone delay beyond 90 days as the MPID Act is a complete code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. The High Court examined Section 5(3) of the MPID Act, which provides that an application must be made within 90 days from the date of seizure or attachment. The court held that the MPID Act is a special statute with a specific limitation period, and the Designated Court cannot condone delay beyond that period. The court distinguished the Madras High Court judgment, noting that it pertained to the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, which has different provisions. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Designated Court's order, and dismissed the application for condonation of delay.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Applicability to MPID Act - The issue was whether the Designated Court under the MPID Act could condone delay beyond 90 days for filing an application under Section 5(3) of the MPID Act. The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings under the MPID Act as the Act is a complete code and provides a specific limitation period of 90 days. The Designated Court has no power to condone delay beyond that period. (Paras 6-8) B) Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 - Section 5(3) - Limitation Period - The court interpreted Section 5(3) of the MPID Act and held that the period of 90 days for filing an application is mandatory and cannot be extended. The Designated Court's order condoning delay of 25 days was set aside as it exceeded the statutory period. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Court under the MPID Act has the power to condone delay beyond 90 days for filing an application under Section 5(3) of the Act?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the Court of District Judge – 12, Nagpur, and dismissed the Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 153 of 2019 filed by the respondent for condonation of delay.
Law Points
- Limitation period for filing application under Section 5(3) of MPID Act is 90 days
- no power to condone delay beyond that period
- Section 5 of Limitation Act not applicable
- Designated Court cannot condone delay beyond 90 days
