Supreme Court rules review petition time-barred, disallows condonation

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that the review petition was not maintainable due to the expiration of the 30-day limitation period under Rule 5A, without the option of condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision to condone the delay and reinstate the review application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of DRT Mumbai.
2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to review petitions under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions against orders dismissing review petitions.
4. Interpretation of "application" under Section 24 of the RDB Act.
5. Application of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC to DRT proceedings.
6. Conduct of the appellant in filing the I.A. for judgment on admission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of DRT Mumbai:
The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the DRT Mumbai, which was ultimately upheld by the DRT and affirmed on appeal. It was established that the DRT Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The review petition filed by the respondent was dismissed by the DRT on the grounds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to review petitions under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993. The DRT followed the Supreme Court's judgment in *International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Others* which clarified that the Limitation Act applies only to applications under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The High Court's decision to condone the delay in filing the review petition was found to be erroneous.

3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions:
The High Court held that a writ petition was maintainable as an alternative remedy of filing an appeal was not available. However, the Supreme Court found this to be incorrect, emphasizing that Section 20 of the RDB Act makes it clear that appeals lie to the DRAT from all applications disposed of by the Tribunal, including review petitions.

4. Interpretation of "Application" under Section 24 of the RDB Act:
The Supreme Court clarified that the term "application" in Section 24 of the RDB Act refers exclusively to applications made under Section 19 for the recovery of debts. Review applications, which are governed by Section 22(2)(e) and Rule 5A, are not covered by Section 24. This interpretation was supported by the precedent set in *International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited*.

5. Application of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC:
The High Court's reliance on Order XLVII Rule 7 of the CPC to hold that an appeal from an order dismissing a review petition is not maintainable was found to be misplaced. The Supreme Court noted that Section 22(1) of the RDB Act explicitly states that the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are not bound by the CPC, and Section 20 of the RDB Act provides a comprehensive appeal mechanism. Consequently, Order XLVII Rule 7 does not apply to DRT proceedings.

6. Conduct of the Appellant:
The respondent's argument regarding the appellant's delayed filing of the I.A. for judgment on admission was rejected. The Supreme Court noted that the jurisdictional challenge by the respondent, which was resolved only in 2017, justified the timing of the appellant's I.A. filing.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the review petition was not maintainable due to the expiration of the 30-day limitation period stipulated in Rule 5A, without the possibility of condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision to condone the delay and restore the review application was overturned.

---