Skip to content


i.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors. Vs. I.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
CourtDRAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Appellanti.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors.
Respondenti.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr.
Excerpt:
.....though learned presiding officer has made a mention that (he defendants have contended that the claim is time barred but there is no finding given by the tribunal below on the lea of limitation.2. the plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. on perusal of the concerned o. a. filed by the respondent corporations in the tribunal below, it is to be found that no facts have been given by them as to how their claim is within time. in para 4 of the o.a. only the following has been stated : that the applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation prescribed under section 24 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993." 3. from other paragraphs of the o.a. nothing can be deduced as to on which date the cause of action.....
Judgment:
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The appellants have urged before me that their contention that the claim application of the respondent Corporations was time barred had not been decided by the Tribunal below. On perusal of the written statement, I find that a plea of limitation was taken. Further, on perusal of the impugned order, I also find that though Learned Presiding Officer has made a mention that (he defendants have contended that the claim is time barred but there is no finding given by the Tribunal below on the lea of limitation.

2. The plea of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. On perusal of the concerned O. A. filed by the respondent Corporations in the Tribunal below, it is to be found that no facts have been given by them as to how their claim is within time. In para 4 of the O.A. only the following has been stated : That the applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation prescribed under Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993." 3. From other paragraphs of the O.A. nothing can be deduced as to on which date the cause of action arose. Learned Counsel for the Corporations fairly conceded that the facts relating to limitation are missing in the O.A.4. In view of the above situation, there is no point that to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Tribunal below for decision afresh after the respondent Corporations give facts relating to limitation and the appellants (who are defendants in the O.A.) are given opportunity to meet those facts.

5. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal below for decision afresh according to law.

The respondent Corporations shall be at liberty to give facts relating to limitation by moving an application for suitable amendment in the O.A. Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below after permitting the respondent Corporations to do so shall give an opportunity to the appellants to counter those facts by submitting additional written statement. After the pleadings are complete, learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal below shall give his own finding whether the claim of the respondent Corporations is within time or not.

6. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal below on 8.10.2001. The Tribunal below is directed to decide the O.A. expeditiously, that is to say, within two months from 8.10.2001.

7. Copy of this order be sent by Registered Post to the parties and a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Tribunal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //