top of page

Condone delay in review petitions cannot be invoked after the prescribed period of 30 days under Rul


CORAM: Two judge bench comprising of Justice ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN and Justice V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

The brief facts of the case are that the parties to this suit purchased an Export Insurance Policy from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company which provided an agreement to indemnify the respondent and the appellant when the foreign buyers default payment. The appellant lodged claim which was repudiated. Thus the appellant filed application before DRT, Mumbai u/s 19 of RDB Act claiming recovery of the sum. An I.A was filed by the respondent before the DRT challenging its jurisdiction which was dismissed. Again an I.A was filed by appellant demanding his amount owed by the respondent which was allowed. An appeal was filed by the respondent against the above order of DRT before the DRAT which was dismissed. Against this order a writ petition was filed before the Bombay HC which was dismissed. The HC set aside the judgment of DRT. Thus this case reached this court.

The issue before the court is Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked to condone delay in the filing revision petition after the prescribed period of 30 days under Rule 5A of the Rules?

The counsel for the appellant contended that the HC could not have looked into Order XLVII Rule 7 of CPC. The counsel also quoted the judgment of  International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320. Also Rule 5A is contrasted with S.20 of the RDB Act stating that review petition filed beyond 30 days must be dismissed.

The counsel for the respondent resisted all the contentions of the appellant. The counsel relied upon the reasoning of the HC which stated S.19 & 22 should be read together. Also reliance was made in paragraph 12 of International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited to contend the fundamental difference between facts in that judgment and the facts in the present case.

The court  heard the arguments of both the counsel and it set out the provisions of RDB Act and the Rules. The aforesaid provisions of the Act and Rules shows that the review petitions are dealt u/s 22(2)(e) r.w R 5A. S.24 of the Limitation Act according to the definition S.2(b) apply only to applications made u/s 19. In International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Limited this court had to consider whether S.5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked to condone delay in filing the appeal.

The court also relied in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others to declare that part and parcel of the original proceedings cannot be countenanced. According to Rule 5A it is clear that beyond 30 days there is no power to condone delay.

The court clearly declared two things: “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”. Also this court is of the view that the HC wrongly applied Order XLVII Rule 7 of CPC. S.22(1) of the Act declares clearly that the Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by CPC. “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”.

Thus, stating the above reasons, this court set aside the judgment of this court and held that it cannot be sustained and allowed the appeal.

View/Download the Judgment: Standard Chartered Bank V. MSTC Limited.




bottom of page