1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2379 OF 2006 1.Splendour Gems Ltd. & another. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.The Bank of Baroda and others. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.2377 OF 2006 1.Splendour Gems Ltd. & another. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Mizuho corporate Bank Ltd. and others. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.2339 OF 2006 1.Splendour Gems Ltd. & another. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Mizuho corporate Bank Ltd. and 2 others. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.2378 OF 2006 1.Splendour Gems Ltd. & another. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Bank of Baroda and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.F.Devitre with V.R.Dhond i/b. M/s.T.N.Tripathi & Co. for petitioners. Mr.C.S.Balsara i/b. M/s.K.Ashar & Co., for Respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 2nd July, 2008. P.C.:- 1. These petitions are directed against the common order passed by the D.R.A.T., and therefore, these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 3 2. By these petitions the petitioners challenge the order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Miscellaneous appeal no.179 of 2005 and the other appeals. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has, by that order, allowed the appeals and has set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It appears that the Bank of Baroda and the other banks had filed original applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. They were decreed by the judgment and order dated 19.8.2004. Thereafter the present petitioners made applications under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, for modification and clarification of order dated 19.8.2004. It appears that it was the case of the petitioners that there is apparent error in the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal which needs to be corrected. It was claimed that there is no limitation prescribed for filing application under section 19(25) of the Act. However, as a matter of abundant caution applications for condonation of delay were made. The Debts Recovery Tribunal granted that applications filed by the petitioners, though, it is common ground that no separate order 4 was passed on the applications for condonation of delay. That order of Debts Recovery Tribunal was challenged before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in various appeals filed by the respondents. The Debts Recovery appellant Tribunal decided those appeals by its order dated 25.11.2005 and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. According to the D.R.A.T, the applications filed by the petitioners under Section 19(25) of the Act were not maintainable, and they could have filed the applications for review, but the limitation provided for filing an application of review is Sixty days from the date of the order and those applications have been filed beyond 60 days of the order, and therefore, the applications were barred by the Law of Limitation and therefore, according to the D.R.A.T, the D.R.T. could not have allowed those applications. 3. After having heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, we find that so far as the order of D.R.A.T. is concerned it suffers from an error which is apparent on the face of the record. Perusal of the order of the D.R.A.T shows that after holding that the application of the petitioners 5 before the D.R.T. filed under Section 19(25) of the Act was not maintainable and that the petitioners should have filed an application for review, it held that the D.R.T could not have granted that application because of bar of law of limitation, forgetting that the petitioners had made an application for condonation of delay before the D.R.T. and the D.R.T. though did not make any separate order on the applications for condonation of delay had granted the applications of the petitioners on merit. In our opinion, after holding that the application of the petitioners filed under Section 19 (25) of the Act was not maintainable and that there should be an application for review, in our opinion, the D.R.A.T. could have applied its mind to the fact that the application for condonation of delay was made by the petitioners before the D.R.T. It was submitted before us that the fact that the D.R.T. had granted the applications of the petitioners on merit would indicate that the D.R.T. had condoned the delay and had allowed the applications for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners. We do not propose to go into that aspect of the matter. In our opinion, the order of the D.R.A.T is liable to be set aside, because after holding that the applications filed by 6 the petitioners are to be treated as applications for review, the D.R.A.T should have applied its mind to the fact that the applications for condonation of delay were made by the petitioners before the D.R.T. In our opinion, due to this error, the order of D.R.A.T. is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, taking overall view of the matter, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order passed by the D.R.A.T impugned in these petitions, is set aside. The appeals before the D.R.A.T are remitted back to the D.R.A.T. for consideration and decision in accordance with law. All the contentions available to both the sides are kept open to be raised before D.R.A.T. Till the D.R.A.T. decides the appeals and for a period of two weeks thereafter, the interim order passed by this Court which is presently operating shall continue to operate. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 7 (R.Y.GANOO,J.) --- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1457 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2379 OF 2006 1.Splendour Gems Ltd. & another. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.The Bank of Baroda and others. ...Respondents. 8 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1458 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2378 OF 2006 1.Splendour Gems Ltd. & another. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Bank of Baroda and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.F.Devitre with V.R.Dhond i/b. M/s.T.N.Tripathi & Co. for petitioners. Mr.C.S.Balsara i/b. M/s.K.Ashar & Co., for Respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED: 2nd July, 2008. - 2 - P.C.:- In view of the order passed in Writ petition nos.2378 and 2379 of 2006 today, the present civil applications do not survive for consideration. Hence, both the civil applications are disposed of. 9 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.Y.GANOO,J.) ---