Dismissed

Punjab National Bank v. Mr B Vidyaranya

DRAT2 May 2022REGULAR APPEAL/12/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, disposed of a limitation objection raised against an appeal filed by Punjab National Bank. The court overruled the objection, holding that the 30-day limitation under the SARFAESI Act runs from the date of receipt of the order.

What did the court decide?

The objection on limitation was overruled and the office was directed to register the appeal.

Punjab National Bank versus Mr B Vidyaranya — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

A.IR:42/2022

¶3

A.O.,Punjab National Bank ... Appellant

¶4

¶5

B.Vidyaranya ... Respondent

¶6

02/05/2022

¶7

Ld. Counsel Shri Sunit Kumar Agarwal for appellant present.

¶8

This AIR (SA) 42/2022 is coming up for hearing the counsel for appellant on the point of limitation. Office raised objection that there is 18 days delay in preferring the appeal, calculating the days by taking the date of order as criteria for the purpose of limitation.

¶9

Ld. Advocate for the appellant bank represented that the appellant pleaded in the appeal in para IV as follows:

¶10

“The appellant bank further declares that the appeal is within the limitation as prescribed in sub-section 18(1) of Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, 2022 (54 of 2002). The appellant bank states that the order is passed by the Hon’ble Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai against which appeal has been preferred, is dated 31.12.2021 but the Certified Copy was made available only on 18.2.2022. As per provisions of Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the appeal may be preferred within 30 days from the date on which a copy of the order is received. As the orders were passed on 31.12.2021, but received by the appellant bank on 18.2.2022, the 30 days limitation is available till 21.3.2022. Hence, the appeal is filed on 15.3.2022 within limitation i.e. within 30 days.”

¶11

Referring to that para, advocate for appellant represented that appellant bank has not received the copy of the order from DRT-II, Chennai as per Rule 16 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, therefore, appellant bank has applied for certified copy and they received it on 18.2.2022 and filed the appeal on 15.3.2022, which is well within time prescribed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act.

¶12

I have perused the material dates with reference to the pleading and the provision under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act. As rightly pointed out, appeal has to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order but not from the date of the order.

¶13

As the appellant specifically pleaded that it received the order only on 18.2.2022, the appeal filed on 15.3.2022 is well within time and the objection of the Office is unsustainable and the same is overruled.

¶14

Office is directed to register the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

¶15

Sd./Chairperson

Punjab National Bank v. Mr B Vidyaranya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Mr B Vidyaranya

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

R M S Vasantha versus a.O.,Uco Bank

M/s. Kunnammkulam Mill Boards versus South Indian Bank

V Shareef versus State Bank of India

S S Vasan versus Indian Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Madras Gange Room Equipment (P) Ltd.

M/s.Canara Bank & Anr. versus M/s.Spun Silk (India) Ltd. & Ors.