CONCLUSION:

The discussions as above leads to the conclusion that the provisions of Limitation Act are
applicable to the proceedings under the Act and the D.R.T. shall apply the provisions of
the Limitation Act. The discussion further concludes that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is
applicable to the proceedings under Act but is not applicable to the filing of an original
application under Sec. 17 (1) of the Act. Yet for another reason also this Writ Petition is not
maintainable. The orders passed by the D.R.T. under Sec. 17 (1) is appealable under Sec. 18
of the Act. Therefore the dismissal of the Sec. 17(1) application consequent on the dismissal
of the delay condonation of the petition are matters to be agitated before the Appellate
Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Bombay High
Court reported in UCO Bank v. Kanji Manji Kothari & Co. The Bombay High Court held
that the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to proceedings under Sec. 17 (1)
of SRFAESI Act and D.R.T. could consider same. The said Court further observed that while
exercising these powers D.R.T. must bear in mind scheme of SRFAESI Act and not allow
any person to proscrastinate proceedings by making frivolous applications. In view of the
decisions of the Apex Court, discussed supra, I do not propose to follow the decision of the
Bombay High Court. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of any merits, hence dismissed.
Ratio - In absence of provision in statue to affirmed power or jurisdiction to statutory to
condone delay no such plea is allowed to be agitated before such authority.