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

i.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors. vs i.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court DRAT Delhi Decided Sep 17, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/56065

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/56065
Court: DRAT Delhi
Judge: A Srivastava
Decided On: Sep 17, 2001
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

i.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors.

Respondent

i.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr.

Excerpt

.....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.....

Full 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.

Same Court & Year DRAT Delhi · 2001 Same Parties i.G. Telecom Ltd. and ors. vs i.F.C.i. Ltd. and anr. Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge A Srivastava