The Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999, allowing for the condonation of delay in filing affidavits unless expressly excluded.

JUDGMENT :

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

1. The Appeal filed under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999, raise a challenge to the order passed on 1/01/2019 (Exhibit 2) by the designated MPID Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai, in Miscellaneous Application No.1512 of 2017, in MPID Special Case No.1 of 2014, thereby accepting the reasons and justification advanced by the Competent Authority, in filing an affidavit as contemplated under Section 5(3) of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 under Exhibit 256, beyond period of 30 days.

2. We have heard learned senior Advocate Mr. Subodh Desai, along with Mr. Amit Ghag for the appellant and Ms. Rebecca Gonsalvez, the Special Public Prosecutor for respondent nos.1 as well as the Competent Authority i.e. respondent no.2.

A short question arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 and in specific to Section 5 (3) thereof.

An ancillary question, which falls for consideration is if the Act so applies, whether the application filed by the Competent Authority to the designated Court accompanied with the affidavit informing that the State Government had issued an order under Section 4, beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of publication of order deserve condonation of delay.

3. The learned senior counsel Mr. Desai, has taken us through the scheme of the MPID Act of 1999, which is an enactment to protect the interest of depositors of the financial establishments and by inviting our attention to its statement of objects and reasons, in light of the scheme and said provisions, he would submit that upon a default by the ‘Financial Establishment’ in repayment of deposit on maturity along with the benefit in form of interest, bonus, profit, or in any other form as promised, every person including the promoter partner, director, manager, or any other person or an employee responsible for management of or conducting of the business or affairs of such financial establishment is liable for a penalty under Section 3 thereof.

By inviting our attention to Section 4, Mr. Desai would urge that upon the complaint received from the depositors or otherwise, the Government is satisfied that any financial establishment has failed to return the deposit after maturity or on demand by the depositor or to pay interest or other assured benefit or to provide the service promised against such deposit or where the Government has reason to believe that the financial establishment is acting in the calculated manner detrimental to the interest of the depositors with an intention to defraud them and if the Government is satisfied that the financial establishment is not likely to return the deposits, or make payment of interest or other benefits assured or to provide services against which the deposit is received, in order to protect the interest of the depositors, it shall issue an order by publishing it in the official gazette, attaching the money or the property believed to have been acquired by such financial establishment either in its own name or in the name of any other person from out of deposits, collected by financial establishment, or if it transpires that such money is not available then such other property of the financial establishment or that of the promoter, director, partner as the government may think fit.

Upon publication of the order under sub-section (1) all the properties and assets of the financial establishment and the persons covered under sub-section (1) of Section 4 shall forthwith vest in the Competent Authority appointed by the Government, pending further order from the Designated Court.

4. While taking his argument ahead, Mr. Desai, would submit that the Competent Authority, which is appointed under sub-section (1