Sanjiv Khanna JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4207 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1 herein - Bank and has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRAT") by which the learned DRAT quashed and set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay in preferring the appeal Under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993"), the original Respondent has preferred the present appeal.
2. The issue involved in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass.
3. The short question, which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to the appeal against the order of Recovery Officer Under Section 30 of the Act, 1993?
4. It is not in dispute that there was a delay of 31 days in the appeal preferred by the Respondent No. 1 - Bank preferred against the order of Recovery Officer. The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned the delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The DRAT set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act observing that Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the appeal Under Section 30 of the Act, 1993 against the order passed by the Recovery Officer. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the DRAT relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of A.R. Venugopal Alias R. Venugopal v. Jotheeswaran and Ors., MANU/SC/0954/2015 : (2016) 16 SCC 588.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court restoring the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal condoning the delay applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the appeal Under Section 30 of the Act, 1993, the original Respondent - Bank has preferred the present appeal.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the issue involved in the present appeal is now not res integra in view of the direct decision of this Court in the case of International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Limited v. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited and Ors., MANU/SC/1330/201........