DRT--Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application for condonation of delay for setting aside exparte order

JUDGMENT

Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.:- By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 15.3.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) dismissing the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 9.8.2017 and the order dated 9.8.2017 (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioner was proceeded against exparte by the Tribunal.

2. A few facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Respondent No.2 filed OA-757-2017 (initially numbered as OA-440-2014) on 12.3.2014 (Annexure P-1) before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1993 Act”) for the recovery of Rs. 28,15,122/- along with pendente lite, future interest, costs and expenses. The petitioner did not appear and the Tribunal vide order dated 9.8.2017 (Annexure P-2) proceeded him against exparte and adjourned the case for 16.10.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application along with affidavit dated 16.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) before the Tribunal for setting aside the exparte proceedings. Respondent No.2 filed reply, Annexure P-4, to the said application. The Tribunal vide order dated 15.3.2018 (Annexure P-5) dismissed the said application. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book with their assistance.

4. The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity “the 1963 Act”) in respect of the proceedings under Section 19 of the 1993 Act?

5. Before adjudicating the controversy involved, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions of the 1993 Act and the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “the 1963 Act”) which read thus:-

“Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.—

(1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions.

(2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act.

19. Application to the Tribunal.—

(1) Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in party, arises.

(2) Where a bank or a financial institution, which has to recover its debt from any person, has filed an application to the Tribunal under subsection (1) and against the same person another bank or financial institution also has claim to recover its debt, then, the later bank or financial institution may join the applicant bank or financial institution at any stage of the proceedings, before the final order is passed, by making an application to that Tribunal.

(3) Every application under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) shall be in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such fee as may be prescribed: Provided that the fee may be prescribed having regard to the amount of d