BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc Appeal No.42/2023 Between M/s. Nextron Technologies LLP & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

UTI Mutual Fund & Ors. …Respondent/s N. Thakkar, along with Mr. Viraj Bansod, i/b Mr. Tushar Goradia, Advocate for Appellant.

S. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent.

-: Order dated: 17/01/2024:-

The Appellants are the auction purchasers of the property which was for e-auctioned by the Recovery Officer in the recovery proceedings pending as Recovery Proceeds (R.P.) No. 62/2002 in Original Application(O.A.) No. 1565/1999 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T). The Recovery Officer had sold their property to the Appellants on 06.04.2018 and the sale was confirmed.

The entire amount towards sale consideration was paid and some societal dues not revealed during the auction, remained outstanding. The Appellants requested the release of a surplus amount of ₹ 1,65,72,073/- lying in deposit with the Recovery Officer for payment of the dues towards the society payable by the borrower. The third respondent society filed an intervention application for realising the dues to the society from out of the surplus amount received on account of the sale.

The said application filed by the Respondent No. 3 was rejected. The Appellant being the auction purchasers of the property are now burdened with the dues payable by the debtor to the society.

It is stated that the said amount was not specified in the auction sale notice. Since the amount was not permitted to be recovered from the sale consideration, the Appellants are aggrieved.

An appeal u/s. 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB Act”, for short) was filed before the Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T. An appeal u/s. 30 is to be filed within 30 days. In the instant case, there was a delay of 210 days and hence, an application for condoning the delay was filed.

The Ld. Presiding Officer rejected that application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal.

Whether the DRT has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal u/s. 30 of the RDB Act is the question that is to be determined. This aspect is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Ors (2017) 16 SCC 137 observed that an appeal filed beyond 30 days as provided u/s. 30(1) of the RDB Act cannot be entertained by condoning the delay by applying the provisions u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act.

Under the circumstances, the Ld. Presiding Officer was perfectly justified in disallowing the application to condone the delay. The appeal is, therefore, without any merits and deserves to be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Misc. Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

Chairperson rm-18