IMPORTANT POINT
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal does not have power to condone delay in filing of appeal under Section 18 of Securitisation Act.

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is – whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the filing of an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Securitisation Act’)? The petitioner had filed an application under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act, being aggrieved by the measures taken by the respondent No.1 / bank under Section 13(4) of the said Act. That application was filed on 04.02.2008 and was registered as S.A. No.152/2008 with the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh. We need not advert to the merits of the application under Section 17 inasmuch as we are only concerned with the question of limitation with regard to the filing of an appeal under Section 18 of the said Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (DRAT). What is relevant for us are only the dates of various steps in the course of the present litigation.

2. On 08.08.2008, after the respondent No.1 / bank had filed its written statement, the case was listed for hearing before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh. On that date, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, the said application (being S.A. No.152/2008) was dismissed in default. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application being M.A. No.52/2008 in the said S.A. No.152/2008 seeking recall of the order dated 08.08.2008 and restoration of the application being S.A. No.152/2008. On 30.11.2009, when the said M.A. No.52/2008 was taken up for hearing, the petitioner’s counsel was not present and the said application also suffered the same fate as the earlier S.A. No.152/2008 and was dismissed for non-appearance. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application being M.A. No.95/2009 for restoration of M.A. No.52/2008. That application was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh by an order dated 02.06.2011 on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to indicate sufficient cause for non-appearance.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 02.06.2011 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh, preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act before the DRAT. The said appeal was numbered as Inward No.435/2011 arising out of S.A. No. 152/2008 (Chandigarh-II). The appeal was, admittedly, filed after a delay of 8 days and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application (M.A. No.599/2011) alongwith the said appeal seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The said application and the appeal were dismissed alongwith two other matters by a common order dated 02.09.2011 passed by the DRAT. The view taken by the DRAT was that it did not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of a delayed appeal filed under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act. The DRAT took the view that the Securitisation Act had specifically referred to limitation under Section 36 thereof and by virtue of that provision, the only aspect covered therein was with regard to the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 for a secured creditor to take all or any of the measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. The DRAT held that this was the only extent to which the Limitation Act, 1963 was made applicable to proceedings under the Securitisation Act. The DRAT observed that once the law of limitation had been taken care of in the Securitisation Act and the legislature had not applied the whole of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the proceedings under the Securitisation Act, then it could not be understood to mean that all the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply. As such, there was an express exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act