DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, DELHI JEEVAN TARA BUILDING: PARLIAMENT STREET;
NEW DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: Dr. REKHA G. DHAKAR MA No.03 of 2018
In
OA No.331 of 2016
Frigate Teknologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Applicants
Versus
City Union Bank
Non Applicant
(ORDER)
(19.08.2019)
1. This MA has been filed by applicants i.e. Smt. Ritu Hooda and Smt. Gursharan Kaur, (Defendant No.3 & 6 of the OA), praying therein to set aside the ex-parte final order/judgment dated 19.08.2017 and allow the defendants to contest the case on merits.
2. It is stated that the ex-parte order in OA No.331/2016 was passed by this Tribunal vide final order dated 19.08.2017. The demand notice under Section 25 to 29 of the Act and Rule 2 of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act dated 09.10.2017 was served upon the above noted applicants herein on 10.11.2017 in terms of final order of this Tribunal dated 19.08.2017 and only then it came to the knowledge of the applicants herein that ex-parte order had been passed against them. It is also stated that the non applicant bank concealed the various material facts before this Tribunal therefore, the order dated 19.08.2017 may be set aside.
3. Notices were issued to the non applicant bank. The non applicant bank put its appearance through counsel however, failed to file the reply within the time therefore, right to file the reply of non applicant bank was closed vide order dated 27.04.2018. The non applicant bank moved an IA No.300/2019 on 27.02.2019 for
1
2
condonation of delay in filing the reply however, the same was not pressed before this Tribunal.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Record reveals that the final order was passed by this Tribunal in OA No.331/2016 on 19.08.2017 and the applicants of MA/Defendant No.3 & 6 has filed the present MA on 07.12.2017 which is beyond the period of limitation of 30 days.
6. The law of limitation proceeds upon the presumption that claim stands extinguished or ought to be held extinguished whenever they are not litigated within prescribed period. It is based upon the principles that vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subveniunt meaning the law aids the diligent and not the indolent; a man who has negligently slept over his right for an undue length of time, will not be allowed to litigate in respect of those rights.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundalik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr. has observed as under :-
"23. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as `statutes of peace'. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others [(1973) 2 SCC
705] has observed : "the object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches". In Motichand vs. Munshi [(1969) 2 SCR 824], this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim "interest republicaeut sit finis litum, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice
3
suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression.
8. Therefore, the present MA is barred by limitation. Even otherwise, no condonation of delay application has been filed by the applicants of MA herein.
9. Further, the notices of OA were sent on the same address where the final order was sent but applicants of MA admitting the receiving of final order but denying the notice of OA, the said contention of the applicants of MA is not acceptable.
10. In view of the above, the present MA is hereby dismissed.
11. File be closed and consigned to record room. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per procedures. (Dr. REKHA G. DHAKAR)
PRESIDING OFFICER
DRT-I, DELHI
Comments