Dismissed

M/S Unicorn Technologies and 4 Others v. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and Another

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2018WRIC/36518/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal under the SARFAESI Act. The court found no sufficient cause for the eight-year delay in approaching the tribunal despite prior notice, holding that the remedy was time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as it was time-barred in view of inordinate delay.

M/S Unicorn Technologies and 4 Others Vs the Debts… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36518 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Unicorn Technologies And 4 Others Respondent :- The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad And Another

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Tarun Varma,Devaang Savla

¶5

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶6

Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.07.2018, by which the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (DRAT) has rejected Appeal No. 124 of 2016. Further challenge has been raised to the order dated dated 31.08.2018 passed by the DRAT, rejecting the review application arising from the order dated 23.07.2018.

¶7

In brief, the petitioners appeal/application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') was rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (DRT) by its order dated 30.04.2016 as time barred by by about eight years.

¶8

Before the DRT, the petitioners sought to explain the delay on account of lack of knowledge of the orders passed. That plea was rejected both by the DRT and DRAT on the reasoning, it was undisputed that the petitioners had received notice of the proceedings wherein those orders had been passed. This fact is admitted to the petitioners, inasmuch as no challenge has been laid in this writ petition as to the correctness of the finding as to service of prior notice on the petitioners.

¶9

Besides the above, the DRAT has also recorded that the petitioners being businessmen, it cannot be assumed that they were ignorant of their rights. Further, the conduct of the petitioners in having entered into third party agreement despite the property being mortgaged with the bank from before, has also been noted by the DRAT in refusing to condone the inordinate delay of almost eight years.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the bank has committed gross illegality in conducting the auction proceedings and further the petitioners are willing to redeem the mortgaged property by paying the bank's entire dues.

¶11

The findings of the DRAT do not appear to suffer from any patent or other error in law. In view of the fact no sufficient cause had been shown to explain the inordinate delay in

¶12

approaching the DRT, finality got attached as the remedy became barred. Further objection raised by the petitioners as to the legality of the auction could therefore be not be gone into in these proceedings. The petitioners being aware of the proceedings, they should have been vigilant and challenged, if at all, at the relevant point of time.

¶13

Insofar as the plea of the petitioners that they seek to redeem the mortgaged property by paying the entire amount is concerned, that can also not be a ground to condone the delay. That plea, if available may be set up and considered by the appropriate authority, strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

In view of the above, no interference is warranted. Petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 27.11.2018 AHA

M/S Unicorn Technologies and 4 Others v. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Unicorn Technologies and 4 Others v. the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Super Bhootpurv Sainik Suraksha Samit Vs Union of India and 2 Others

M/S Guru Filling Station Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Samrendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Laxmi Shanker Sahu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kalyan Singh Vs State of U P and 03 Others