Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of apartments in Jupiter Complex, Nagpur, challenged orders of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) which held that the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act). The petitioners argued that the RDDBFI Act is a special statute and the Limitation Act should not apply. The High Court, after hearing submissions, dismissed the writ petition, affirming that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to appeals under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act. The court reasoned that the RDDBFI Act does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, and the principles of limitation are procedural in nature, intended to prevent injustice. The court emphasized that a liberal construction should be adopted to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The decision upholds the orders of the DRT and DRAT.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Applicability to Special Statutes - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 30 of RDDBFI Act, 1993 - The court considered whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act. The Debts Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal held that the Limitation Act applies. The High Court upheld this view, reasoning that the RDDBFI Act does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act and that principles of limitation are procedural and should be liberally construed to advance justice. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or its principles are applicable to an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDDBFI Act).
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The orders of DRT and DRAT holding that the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 30 of RDDBFI Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Applicability of Limitation Act to RDDBFI Act appeals
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Section 30 of RDDBFI Act
- principles of limitation
- condonation of delay
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (10) 101
B. P. Dharmadhikari, A. P. Bhangale
Mr S. N. Kumar, Ms Y. Ramani Patro, Mr Swapnil Lavatawar, Ms Seema Shrinath for petitioners; Mr N.K. Fuladi, Mr U.K. Fuladi for respondent
Madhukar Govindrao Thaware and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal regarding applicability of Limitation Act to appeals under RDDBFI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the orders holding that Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 30 of RDDBFI Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were owners of apartments in Jupiter Complex and were affected by the DRT/DRAT orders which applied the Limitation Act to their appeal.
Previous Decisions
DRT Nagpur order dated 17 March 2009 and DRAT Mumbai order dated 5 January 2011 held that provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to an appeal under Section 30 of RDDBFI Act.
Issues
Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to appeals under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that RDDBFI Act is a special statute and the Limitation Act should not apply.
Respondent Central Bank of India supported the DRT/DRAT orders that Limitation Act applies.
Ratio Decidendi
The Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Section 5, applies to appeals under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act as the RDDBFI Act does not expressly exclude the Limitation Act, and principles of limitation are procedural and should be liberally construed to advance justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The question raised is as to whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act or its principles are applicable to appeal filed under section 30 of the RDDBFI Act.
The Petitioners are owners of Apartments in the building known as ‘Jupiter Complex’ Situated at Vaishali Nagar, Binaki, Nagpur.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 5 January 2011 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and the order dated 17 March 2009 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, which held that the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 30 of the RDDBFI Act.
Acts & Sections
- Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993: 30
- Limitation Act, 1963: 5
