JUDGMENT :

P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.

On 06.12.2022, the following order was passed:-

“Heard the matter for sometime.

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 out tha