Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, ARUN KUMAR JHA, JJ.
Jupiter Electricals and Lamps India Pvt. Ltd., Through Sri Nisheeth Jaiswal, S/o. Late D.D. Jaiswal - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21919 Of 2013
Decided On : 11-01-2023
Recovery of Dept and Bankruptcy Act, 1993–Sections 25, 29, 30 and Rule 16 of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 read with Rule 53 and Second Schedules of the Income Tax Act–DRT Appeal–Limitation–petitioner's Counsel appeared in RP Case on 23.11.2005 and thereafter disappeared for four years till passing of order on 2.7.2009–application for certified copy of order was filed on 7.9.2009 which he received on 10.9.2009 whereas DRT appeal was filed on 23.11.2009 which is beyond the limitation period of 30 days, in terms of the Statute–even the statute does not provide for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the DRT there is delay of more than one and half month in filing the appeal–if the real intention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to certified copy or copy of the order through the DRT Registry in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules, 1993 read with Section 29 of Act, 1993 and Rule 53, Second Schedule of IT Act, petitioner would not have made application for certified copy–in other words, the contention that petitioner is entitled to copy of the order the Registry of the DRT is only on afterthought–present petition is liable to be dismissed on the score of the appeal being time barred. (Para 14)
(2005) 6 SCC 186 Paras 10 – 14, (2010) 5 SCC 23 Para 23, (1999) 8 SCC 304 paras 5 & 7–Referred.
JUDGMENT :
(P.B. Bajanthri, J.)
On 06.12.2022, the following order was passed:-
The petitioner-Jupiter Electricals and Lamps (India) Pvt. Ltd. who had borrowed money in the form of Term Loan of Rs. 3 Crores from the respondent-IDBI Bank. The petitioner-Jupiter Electricals and Lamps (India) Pvt. Ltd. failed to repay the Term Loan along with the interest. Therefore, the respondent-IDBI Bank proceeded to declare the petitioner’s account as NPA at a sum of Rs. 3,90,00,556/-. The matter was decided by D.R.T., Patna on 21.12.2001 holding that petitioner company and two directors of the petitioner company are jointly and severely liable for making a payment of the amount of Rs. 4.34 Crores(approximately) along with further charges and interest from 01.07.2000.
In the light of R.P. Case No. 53/2002 was registered in the file of the Recovery Officer, D.R.T., Patna for execution of order dated 21.12.2001. The notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.03.2002. There was no response from the petitioners and its directors. Petitioners and directors have appeared through advocate in the month of October 2005 that is more than 3 years form the date of issuance of notice. Recovery Officer, D.R.T., Patna proceeded to pass order on 11.03.2008 relating to attachment and attaching the mortgaged leasehold property along with building structures thereon as well as the plant and machineries which were hypothecated with the respondent-Bank. On 13.05.2008 plant and machineries were revalued and revaluation has been reported by the valuation of the building structures and plant and machineries. Valuation report was submitted on 05.08.2008 before the Recovery Officer. Recovery Officer proceeded to fix the reserve price at Rs. 1.28 Crores since no bidder was turned up to participate in the bid. Further fresh auction request was made by the Bank and thereafter it was rescheduled on 11.11.2008. Certificate Debtor No. 2 did not appear on number of occasions like 15.05.2009 and 25.05.2009 so also on 02.07.2009. D.R.T proceeded to pass order on 02.09.2009.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2009 petitioner invoke remedy under Section 30 of RDB Act, 1993. D.R.T proceeded to pass order on 31.05.2010 in setting aside the order dated 02.07.2009.
Feeling aggrieved by the D.R.T order dated 31.05.2010 auction purchaser/Kaveri Liquors Pvt. Ltd. preferred appeal before the D.R.A.T. D.R.A.T allowed the auction purchaser’s appeal while restoring the order dated 02.07.2009, hence the present writ petition by the petitioner-Jupiter Electricals and Lamps (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Perusal of the records it is evident that petition/application before D.R.T against the order dated 02.07.2009 on behalf of the petitioner-Jupiter Electricals and Lamps (India) Pvt. Ltd. under Section 30(1) of RDB Act, 1993 is barred by limitation. In the light of the language employed in Section 30(1).
Section 30(1) of RDB Act reads as under:-
“30. Appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal”.
The petitioner’s application/petition before D.R.T against the order dated 02.07.2009 is not maintainable on the ground of delay. Apex Court in the case of Avneesh Chandan Gadgil & Anr. Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors. examined Section 30(1) of RDB Act, 1993 read with Section 5 of limitation Act, 1963 and held that belated petition/application under Section 30(1) of RDB Act, 1993 is not maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid maintainability of his petition before D.R.T was not a subject matter before D.R.A.T. Therefore, the same cannot be examined by this Court. Further it is pointed
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the power of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to condone delay in filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, as clarified by the Supreme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Recovery Officer should not proceed with the execution of the recovery certificate after a stay has been granted by a superior court, and ....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the timelines for filing the written statement and counter-claim under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial I....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
