Case: STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. MSTC LIMITED

before the Recovery Officer deemed to be before a Tribunal, entirely different considerations may have arisen. From this sentence, the learned counsel sought to infer that it would not only be applications under Section 19 that would come within the application spoken of in Section 24, but other applications also. 12. We are afraid we are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission. The clear ratio decidendi of this judgment makes it abundantly clear that the only application referred to in Section 24 is an application filed under Section 19 and to no other. The sentence that is extracted and relied upon by Mr. Dave only makes sense in the context of Section 30 unamended, when read juxtaposed with Section 30 as amended. Under the unamended section, when the recovery officers order was deemed as an order of the Tribunal, appeals would lie to the Appellate Tribunal. This would mean that Section 20 of the RDB Act would apply, as a result of which Section 20(3) would kick in and would permit condonation of delay. After the amendment, it is important to note that the recovery officer is no longer considered a Tribunal, as result of which an appeal from a recovery officers order is made not to the Appellate Tribunal, but to the Tribunal of first instance. It is in this context that the aforesaid sentence in paragraph 12 of the Courts judgment is to be read, making it clear that if the unamended Section 30 were to apply, the provision contained in Section 20(3) would be attracted, permitting condonation of delay. 13. Mr. Daves second contention that, in any case, a review petition is only a correction of the order made in the original proceeding, and therefore part and parcel of the original proceeding, cannot be countenanced in view of this Courts judgment in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others (supra). This Court held: 13. In a criminal proceeding, review is permissible on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. A review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) xxx (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. 14. The peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 04.11.2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear: one, whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation – otherwise they would not be maintainable. 15. We are also of the view that the High Court wrongly applied Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order XLVII Rule 7 states as follows: 7. Order of rejection not appealable - Objections to order granting application.- (1) An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to at once by an appeal from the order granting the application or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit. (2) Where the application has been rejected in consequence of the failure of the applicant to appear, he may apply for an order to have the rejected application restored to the file, and, where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when such application was called on for hearing, the Court shall order it to be restored to the file upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for hearing the same. (3) No order shall be made under sub-rule (2) unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. 16. Section 22(1) of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, making it clear thereby that Order XLVII Rule 7 would not apply to the Tribunal. Also, in view of Section 20, which applies to all applications that may be made, including applications for review, and orders being made therein being subject to appeal, it is a little difficult to appreciate how Order XLVII Rule 7 could apply at all, given that Section 20 of the RDB Act is part of a complete and exhaustive code. Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that the 1993 Act, (and, therefore, Section 20), will have overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force, which includes the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, in holding that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review petition, and that therefore a writ petition would be maintainable, was clearly in error on this count also. 17. Shri Daves contention that as to the appellants conduct, as in an application filed in 2012 an I.A praying that a judgment should be given on admission, was filed unconscionably late i.e. only in 2017, five years later, also has no legs to stand. In 2013, the respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the DRT Mumbai which challenge was repelled finally in appeal only in 2017 after which the said I.A was filed. In any event, this is not an argument which would, by itself, lead to a dismissal of the SLP filed by the appellant under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. A reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules would show that review petitions are dealt with in Section 22(2)(e) read with Rule 5A of the Rules. Section 24, which applies the provisions of the Limitation Act to applications made to a Tribunal, would, as per the definition section contained in Section 2(b), apply only to applications that are made under Section 19, which are original applications to recover debts that are made by banks and financial institutions. What is clear is that an application for review cannot possibly be said to be an application filed under Section 19 even on a cursory reading of the provisions of the Act, as it traces its origin to Section 22(2)(e) read with Rule 5A of the Rules10. The judgment of this Court makes it plain, though in a slightly different context, that the only application that is referred to by Section 24 of the RDB Act is an application filed under Section 19 and no other. This being the case, an application for review, not being an application under Section 19, but an application under Section 22(2)(e) read with Rule 5A of the Rules, this judgment would apply on all fours to exclude applications which are review applications from the purview of Section 24 of the RDB Act12. We are afraid we are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission. The clear ratio decidendi of this judgment makes it abundantly clear that the only application referred to in Section 24 is an application filed under Section 19 and to no other. The sentence that is extracted and relied upon by Mr. Dave only makes sense in the context of Section 30 unamended, when read juxtaposed with Section 30 as amended. Under the unamended section, when the recovery officers order was deemed as an order of the Tribunal, appeals would lie to the Appellate Tribunal. This would mean that Section 20 of the RDB Act would apply, as a result of which Section 20(3) would kick in and would permit condonation of delay. After the amendment, it is important to note that the recovery officer is no longer considered a Tribunal, as result of which an appeal from a recovery officers order is made not to the Appellate Tribunal, but to the Tribunal of first instance. It is in this context that the aforesaid sentence in paragraph 12 of the Courts judgment is to be read, making it clear that if the unamended Section 30 were to apply, the provision contained in Section 20(3) would be attracted, permitting condonation of delay13. Mr. Daves second contention that, in any case, a review petition is only a correction of the order made in the original proceeding, and therefore part and parcel of the original proceeding, cannot be countenanced in view of this Courts judgment in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others (supra)14. The peremptory language of Rule 5A would also make it clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay. We may also note that Rule 5A was added in 1997 with a longer period within which to file a review petition, namely, 60 days. This period was cut down, by amendment, with effect from 04.11.2016, to 30 days. From this two things are clear: one, whether in the original or unamended provision, there is no separate power to condone delay, as is contained in Section 20(3) of the Act; and second, that the period of 60 days was considered too long and cut down to 30 days thereby evincing an intention that review petitions, if they are to be filed, should be within a shorter period of limitation – otherwise they would not be maintainable15. We are also of the view that the High Court wrongly applied Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure16. Section 22(1) of the Act makes it clear that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, making it clear thereby that Order XLVII Rule 7 would not apply to the Tribunal. Also, in view of Section 20, which applies to all applications that may be made, including applications for review, and orders being made therein being subject to appeal, it is a little difficult to appreciate how Order XLVII Rule 7 could apply at all, given that Section 20 of the RDB Act is part of a complete and exhaustive code. Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that the 1993 Act, (and, therefore, Section 20), will have overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force, which includes the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court, in holding that no appeal would be maintainable against the dismissal of the review petition, and that therefore a writ petition would be maintainable, was clearly in error on this count also17. Shri Daves contention that as to the appellants conduct, as in an application filed in 2012 an I.A praying that a judgment should be given on admission, was filed unconscionably late i.e. only in 2017, five years later, also has no legs to stand. In 2013, the respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the DRT Mumbai which challenge was repelled finally in appeal only in 2017 after which the said I.A was filed. In any event, this is not an argument which would, by itself, lead to a dismissal of the SLP filed by the appellant under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.