Home  /  Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993  /  Section 30

Section 30: Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1993
Section 29 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 31

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 30

Section 30 provides an exclusive statutory appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal against any order passed by the Recovery Officer, imposing an inflexible limitation period of thirty days.

  • Right of Appeal to Presiding Officer: Sub-section (1) provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under the Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
  • Inflexible Thirty-Day Limitation Period: The appeal must be lodged strictly within thirty days; the Supreme Court has definitively ruled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 30.
  • Plenary Appellate Powers of the Tribunal: Sub-section (2) empowers the Tribunal, on receipt of an appeal, to confirm, modify, or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer, or make such other order as it may think fit, exercising comprehensive corrective authority over execution proceedings.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd. v. Official Liquidator (2017) 16 SCC 137: A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an appeal under Section 30 is not an 'application' under Section 24, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked to condone delay beyond the thirty-day limitation period prescribed under Section 30(1).
  • Standard Chartered Bank v. Dharminder Bhohi (2013) 15 SCC 341: The Supreme Court held that the Presiding Officer sits in appeal under Section 30 as a corrective appellate authority over the Recovery Officer, but cannot use this appellate forum to reopen the underlying debt adjudicated in the recovery certificate.
  • Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank v. Ashok Saw Mill (2009) 8 SCC 366: The Supreme Court recognized that specialized tribunal appellate scrutiny over executing officers provides an efficacious and speedy remedy, ensuring that wrongful sales or procedural infractions are undone without recourse to civil suits.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Limitation under Section 30 is fatal. Under the rule in International Asset Reconstruction Co., the DRT has zero jurisdiction to condone even a single day's delay beyond thirty days from the date of issuance of the Recovery Officer's order. Count limitation strictly from the date the order was certified or uploaded. If thirty days have elapsed, the only remedy is to challenge the order before the High Court under Article 227 demonstrating a manifest lack of jurisdiction or gross violation of natural justice.

Section 29 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 31