Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs MSTC Ltd. Supreme Court gave a binding decision on the plaint filed regarding the power to condone delays by Debts recovery tribunal. Supreme Court considered various arguments and certain sections of the concerned Act which is Recover of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993 (RDB Act). Bench of JusticeR. F. Nariman founded a question of extreme importance and held the judgement by the Mumbai High Court not binding and inapplicable, which set aside the order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal Mumbai in this case of rejecting a review petition on the grounds of delay.
In this mentioned case the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered Section 5 of the Limitation Act and its provision to condone delay by Debts Recovery Tribunal apply only to review petitions and not to the original applications filed under Section 19 of Recovery of Debts Act and not to review petitions.
Bench applied the dictum given in the year 2017 in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And others in which it was held the same that the power to condone delay does not vest with DRT. Also, SC described about the differences of the basic facts of this case and the case mentioned above.
Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that only application that is to be referred to by Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Act is an application filed under Section 19 but no other can else be referred as this.
The Rule 5A which was held in this case of International Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Vs. The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And ors. will apply in this case , which is to exclude applications from review applications under the purview of Section 24 of the RDB Act.
86540
103860
630
114
59824