Summary
Applying International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd., the Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not permit condonation of delay in an appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act against a Recovery Officer’s order. The statutory scheme excludes such extension. The High Court had relied on A.R. Venugopal, which the later binding decision had expressly overruled.
Issues
- Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits condonation of delay in a Section 30 appeal against a Recovery Officer’s order.
Provisions considered
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963Its delay-condonation power was excluded for the particular statutory appeal under Section 30 of the 1993 Act. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
Held
- The scheme of the special Act confines Section 24’s application of limitation law to original proceedings under Section 19 and separately provides an extension power for Section 20 appeals. The omission of an extension power for Section 30 appeals demonstrates exclusion; Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not supply the missing power. (¶ 7)
- International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. directly governed the question after the 2000 amendment and expressly overruled A.R. Venugopal. The Tribunal could not condone the bank’s 31-day delay by invoking Section 5. (¶¶ 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court order and the Tribunal’s delay-condonation order were set aside; the DRAT order rejecting that condonation was restored. No costs.