https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195668 A special statute prescribing a fixed 30-day period for appeal can exclude condonation of delay by necessary implication, so Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply through Section 29(2). Comparing the 2002 Act with the 1993 banking recovery statute, the Court noted that Parliament omitted any express power to condone delay under Section 18 of the 2002 Act, consistent with its scheme of speedy enforcement and recovery. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal therefore has no power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 18, and the challenge to dismissal of the delayed appeal failed. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2018 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195668 A special statute prescribing a fixed 30-day period for appeal can exclude condonation of delay by necessary implication, so Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply through Section 29(2). Comparing the 2002 Act with the 1993 banking recovery statute, the Court noted that Parliament omitted any express power to condone delay under Section 18 of the 2002 Act, consistent with its scheme of speedy enforcement and recovery. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal therefore has no power to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 18, and the challenge to dismissal of the delayed appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195668