STANDARD CHARTERED BANK versus MSTC LIMITED

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK versus MSTC LIMITED

Review applications filed under Section 22(2)(e) read with Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 are not 'applications' within the meaning of Section 2(b)/Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (which applies the Limitation Act only to applications under s.19); Rule 5A's peremptory time limit (30 days as amended) does not permit condonation of delay; Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC is inapplicable to the Tribunal since s.22(1) displaces CPC procedure; consequently the High Court erred in condoning delay and holding a writ maintainable against dismissal of the review petition.

Parties
Appellant: Standard Chartered Bank; Respondent: MSTC Limited
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 03.05.2019 Arising From Writ Petition Challenging DRT Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 03.05.2019 set aside
Legal Topics
Review Applications Under Rule 5 a, Condonation of Delay, Scope of 'application' in S.24 RDB Act, Applicability of CPC Provisions to Tribunal, Appeals From Tribunal Orders
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Debt Recovery Tribunal (procedure) Rules, 1993 Limitation Act, 1963 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Review Applications Under Rule 5 a Condonation of Delay Scope of 'application' in S.24 RDB Act Applicability of CPC Provisions to Tribunal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Chartered Bank

Appellant

MSTC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Bombay High Court Judgment Dated 03.05.2019 Arising From Writ Petition Challenging DRT Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 24 of the RDB Act (application of Limitation Act) applies to review applications under Section 22(2)(e) read with Rule 5A or only to applications under Section 19
  2. 2 Whether Rule 5A permits condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period for filing review applications
  3. 3 Whether Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC applies to review petitions before the DRT/Appellate Tribunal given Section 22(1) of the RDB Act

Ratio Decidendi

Review applications filed under Section 22(2)(e) read with Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 are not 'applications' within the meaning of Section 2(b)/Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (which applies the Limitation Act only to applications under s.19); Rule 5A's peremptory time limit (30 days as amended) does not permit condonation of delay; Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC is inapplicable to the Tribunal since s.22(1) displaces CPC procedure; consequently the High Court erred in condoning delay and holding a writ maintainable against dismissal of the review petition.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 03.05.2019 set aside

Orders

  • Set aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 03.05.2019 in Writ Petition No. 2765 of 2018
  • Appeal allowed and the decision of the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissing the application to condone delay and rejecting the delayed review petition is restored