The Appellant challenged the DRT’s dismissal of his condonation petition for delay in filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, alleging late knowledge of a possession notice. The Tribunal held the delay unexplained, contradicted pleadings, and dismissed the appeal.
Appeal MA (SA) 446/2010 dismissed; all pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MA (SA) 446/2010
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 26th of April, 2022
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
MA (SA) 446/2010
[IA No.376/2009 in SASR No.2080/2009 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai]
Between
M. Senthilkumar, No. 411A, Malar Colony, No.1, 19th Main Road, Annanagar (West), Chennai 40.
……Appellant
And
Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83.
1
MA (SA) 446/2010
….. Respondents
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. B. S. Jhothiraman Counsel for Respondent No.1 Bank : Mr. S. Muthuraman
ORDER
2
MA (SA) 446/2010
to the Legal Notice dated 14.08.2009 and as the delay is not explained to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, the Application is dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order, present Appeal is preferred.
3
MA (SA) 446/2010
the date of Notice, there is delay and the said delay is not willful and there is no lethargy on the part of Appellant, and an opportunity may be given to Appellant to agitate his rights.
4
MA (SA) 446/2010
“ 17.[ Application against measures to
recover secured debts ].—(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter,[may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measure had been taken.”
5
MA (SA) 446/2010
property and has been continuous possession and enjoyment of the same ever since the date of purchase and called upon the 1st Respondent to disclose the charge said to have been created over the said property by R. Muthukumaraswamy. It is further pleaded that the 1st Respondent in its reply dated 24.08.2009, without disclosing the details sought for by the Appellant, had made wholly untenable allegation that the Appellant in collusion with Respondent No.2 (M. Subhiha) issued Legal Notice dated 14.08.2009.
6
MA (SA) 446/2010
that the Appellant filed the proceedings challenging Possession Notice dated 16.05.2009. Nowhere it is pleaded that the Appellant had the knowledge of the said notice only on 12.08.2009 and not prior to that.
7
MA (SA) 446/2010
[Dictated to Athistamani, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 26th of April, 2022]
Sd/- [ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON
8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellant is entitled to condonation of 99 days delay in filing appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act given the contradiction between his pleadings and his claim of knowledge of the
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal was correct in dismissing the condonation application for lack of cogent reasons for delay.
Whether this Appeal is maintainable on merits given the failure to explain the delay in approaching the DRT.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M. Senthilkumar
Bank of Baroda
M. Subbiah
Thirupurasundari
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
