Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s condonation of delay in a DRT review application. Section 24 of the RDB Act applied limitation law to original Section 19 applications, not review proceedings under Section 22(2)(e) and Rule 5A. The review rule’s thirty-day limit carried no power to condone delay. An appeal against rejection of review was available under Section 20; the CPC restriction on appeals from review rejection did not govern the Tribunal.
Issues
- Whether delay in a DRT review application could be condoned and whether rejection of review was appealable under the RDB Act.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(b) and 24, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993Application of limitation law through Section 24 was confined to original Section 19 applications and did not extend to review. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12)
- Rule 5A, Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993The peremptory thirty-day review period contained no power to condone delay. (¶¶ 5, 14)
- Sections 20(1), 22(1) and 34(1), Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993Review-rejection orders were appealable under the special statutory scheme; Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC did not exclude that appeal. (¶¶ 5, 15, 16)
Held
- A review application originates in Section 22(2)(e) and Rule 5A, rather than Section 19. It corrects an apparent error in a concluded decision and cannot be equated with the original debt-recovery proceeding so as to attract Section 24. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13)
- International Asset Reconstruction’s ratio confined Section 24 to Section 19 applications. Its discussion of the former status of recovery-officer orders did not expand that definition. Rule 5A independently required review within thirty days and supplied no condonation power. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 14)
- The Tribunal was not bound by CPC procedure, and the RDB Act’s appeal and overriding provisions governed. The High Court therefore erred in invoking Order XLVII Rule 7 to hold that rejection of review was not appealable and that a writ petition should lie on that basis. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The bank’s application for judgment on admission followed resolution of the respondent’s jurisdictional challenge in 2017; the alleged delay in making that application did not justify rejecting this appeal. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment condoning delay and restoring the review application set aside.