This tribunal allowed an appeal filed by the bank against a DRT order that set aside a sale. The tribunal held the Securitisation Application was barred under a 45-day limitation period mandated by Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Securitisation Application TSA No.217/2016 (SA No. 402/2011) is dismissed.
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.
RA (SA) 80/2018
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 14th of June, 2023
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON
RA (SA) 80/2018
[TSA 217/2016 (SA 402/2011) on the file of DRT-II, Ernakulam]
Between
……Appellants
And
1
RA (SA) 80/2018
Rep. by its Prop. M. Ajith.
….. Respondents
Counsel for Appellant : Mr. P. V. Muralidhar Counsel for R.1(a) to R1 (c) : Mr. G. Sanjeevi Counsel for R2 : Mr. J. Prince & Mr. Roshan
2
RA (SA) 80/2018
ORDER
02.11.2017 in TSA 217/2016 (SA No. 402/2011) of DRT-II, Ernakulam.
Appellant herein resisted said Application contending that Bank duly followed mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules and there are no violations.
Tribunal below, on a consideration of contentions and rival contentions of both parties, held that Sale held on 07.04.2011 is null and void and thereby set aside the same. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is preferred.
3
RA (SA) 80/2018
4
RA (SA) 80/2018
held by this Tribunal, in various cases. He further submitted, Tribunal below, without considering these aspects, wrongly allowed Securitisation Application, and impugned Order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted, even publication is property made, and copies of paper publication are filed, but still, Tribunal below wrongly recorded that there is no proper publication. He submitted, for these reasons, impugned Order dated 02.11.2017, is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that property is already sold, and now, it is in possession of Auction Purchaser.
5
RA (SA) 80/2018
arguments of Appellant Bank.
whereas, Securitisation Application is filed on 11.07.2011,
6
RA (SA) 80/2018
which is clearly beyond the period of 45 days. As rightly pointed out by Learned Advocate for Appellant, issue of Sale Certificate and its registration, is not a measure under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, they are only consequential to measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Any aggrieved party is entitled to challenge the main action, but, not the consequential action, leaving the main action. Tribunal below completely lost sight of the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, particularly, in calculating limitation period. In fact, Scrutiny Staff should have taken care of it at the initial stage itself. Even they lost sight of it, Learned Presiding Officer, should have examined properly, when it is apparently beyond the period of 45 days.
7
RA (SA) 80/2018
their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 14th of June, 2023]
[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON
8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Securitisation Application filed beyond the 45-day limitation period under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act is maintainable.
Whether a Sale Certificate is an independent measure under the SARFAESI Act capable of being challenged under Section 17(1).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Authorised Officer, Indian Bank
The Indian Bank, Alappuzha Branch
Mrs. Padmakshy (Deceased) W/o Mr. Sreedharan
Mr. Ramaseshan
Mr. Devanandan
Mrs. Saroja
S. Ravi Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
13 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
