The Tribunal allowed an amendment application to implead an auction purchaser despite the appellant's laches, directing payment of costs to cure the delay and permitting amendment within two weeks.
Application for amendment allowed; appellant directed to pay costs of ₹5,000 and ₹10,000; liberty to amend within two weeks.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
Misc. Appeal No. 37/2019
Between
Shri Dattatraya M Gaurav … Appellant/s
V/s.
Union Bank of India & Anr.
…Respondent/s
Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Appellant.
Mrs Rathna Maravarman, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Bank appeared through Video Conferencing.
-: Order dated: 12/09/2024: -
The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 22.02.2019 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 675 of 2016 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 24 of 2014 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T) dismissing the application which was for amendment consequent to impleading the auction purchaser who had purchased the secured asset in an auction sale which was conducted on 17.06.2013 and the sale was confirmed in his favour.
1
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Be that as it may, the appellant applied (Ext.22) on 15.05.2015 for bringing the auction purchaser on the party array. There was some defect in the application and therefore, he sought liberty to withdraw that application by filing another application. On 15.04.2016, that application was withdrawn and the present application was filed on 29.04.2016.
2
limitation prescribed for filing an application for amendment of the S.A. There is also no dispute that the S.A. can be amended at any stage importing the principle of order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, though the said provision is not explicitly applicable to the proceedings before the DRT. I am of the opinion that the principles of amendment read together with the provisions under Sec. 19(25) of the RDB Act, the application for amendment can be entertained. This view has also been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 12170 of 2016 and therefore, there is no embargo in filing an application for amendment of the application.
3
the setting aside of the sale. No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the respondent bank by bringing on record the auction purchaser and giving him also an opportunity to be heard on whether the sale in his favour has to be set aside or not.
4
expedite the disposal of the S.A. itself on merits as early as possible. For reporting compliance, adjourned to 20.09.2024.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-14
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment to implead an auction purchaser can be allowed despite laches on the part of the appellant.
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal erred in dismissing the amendment application due to limitation issues regarding the impugned order.
What compensation is appropriate for the appellant's delay in filing the belated amendment application.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri Dattatraya M Gaurav
Union Bank of India & Anr.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
