In an appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the challenge to an order where a Section 17 application under the SARFAESI Act was held time-barred. The court held the application was filed after the 45-day period and the appellant falsely claimed a narrow time limit granted by the High Court.
Appeal dismissed; Impugned order confirmed.
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.
Reportable/ Not Reportable
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Appeal No. 68 of 2024)
(Arising out of S.A.I.R. No. 176 of 2023 in DRT—1, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
…Appellants
-Versus-
… Respondents Counsel for the parties Mr. Amancharla V. Gopala Rao, Learned Counsel for the Appellants None for the Respondents JUDGMENT : On 22nd August, 2024
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the record. Respondents are served but not
2
represented. At the very outset, it is to be observed that in this matter Indian Overseas Bank was duly served by the Appellant but despite service the officers of the Bank intentionally for the reasons best known to them avoided to appear in this Tribunal to contest the Appeal. Such conduct of the Bank officers requires a thorough probe by the competent authority of the Bank as to why despite notice they have not put in appearance in the Appeal? I left to the wisdom of the competent authorities of the Bank to hold an enquiry and fix the responsibilities on the concerned officers for their non-appearance.
2. As far as facts of the matter are concerned, instant Appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated 8th April, 2024 passed by Learned DRT-1 Hyderabad in I.A. No. 576 of 2023 arising out of SAIR No. 176 of 2023 whereby Learned DRT dismissed the Section 17 application filed by the Appellant holding the same to be time barred. 3. Feeling aggrieved Appellant preferred the Appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant is an auction purchaser who has challenged the notice of the Bank dated 01.09.2022 issued by the Bank forfeiting the bid amount of 25% deposited by the Appellant. It is stated that he was the successful bidder in the e- auction held on 30th September, 2019. 25% of the bid amount was deposited by him. He was always ready and willing to pay balance amount of 75% within 30 days. But the Bank did not collect the same on the ground of some
3
interim order passed by Learned DRT in S.A. No. 271 of 2019.
5. It is submitted that Section 17 Application was filed challenging the notice dated 01.09.2022 before the DRT on 23.02.2023. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that prior to filing of this Application, Appellant filed a Writ Petition No. 46772 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana Hyderabad which was decided on 2nd January, 2023. Hon’ble High Court held that remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is an effective and efficacious remedy. Writ Petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. 6. SARFAESI Application was filed before the Learned DRT with an I.A. No. 576 of 2023 for condonation of delay on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court has passed the order in Writ Petition. Accordingly, Application under Section 17 is being filed before the DRT. Learned DRT after considering the submissions dismissed this I.A. No. 576 of 2023 holding that the Section 17 Application was not filed within the stipulated period of 45 days.
7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the liberty was granted by the Hon’ble High Court for approaching the DRT by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, Appellant preferred the Section 17 Application along with Application for condonation of delay which was filed on 23.02.2023.
4
Learned Counsel also submitted that the Section 17 Application was filed within time as the Hon’ble High Court order was made available on 21st January, 2023. Accordingly, Section 17 Application is filed within time.
8. There cannot be two opinion and dispute on the fact that an Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act has to be filed within 45 days which is a mandatory provision. As would appear from the Securitization Application, Appellant tried to mislead the DRT by mentioning a wrong fact in the Limitation clause that Hon’ble High Court has granted two week’s time from the order to move Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is specifically stated in Paragraph 5 of the Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. which reads as under:
“It is submitted that though the Possession Notice was issued by the Respondent No. 1 Bank on 20.02.2014, the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 40649 of 2022 vide its order dated 22.11.2022 had categorically held that the Applicant herein is granted liberty to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act within 2 (two) weeks from the said order being passed i.e. till 06.12.2022 and further, the Hon’ble High Court also stated in its order that this Hon’ble Tribunal may consider to condone the delay in filing the present SA. Hence, as there is a delay of 249 days the present Application is being filed along with condone delay petition.”
9. A bare perusal of this paragraph would show that a wrong statement regarding Limitation was made by the Appellant before the Learned DRT. That too regarding some orders passed by Hon’ble High Court. It was incumbent upon the Appellant to quote the orders of the Hon’ble High
5
Court accurately. But Appellant wrongly and intentionally mentioned a wrong fact regarding orders of the Hon’ble High Court which could not be accepted. On this ground alone, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. However, if we enter into the merits of the matter regarding Section 5 Application, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was passed on 02.01.2023. Section 17 Application was filed on 23.02.2023 i.e. after 51 days. Even if for the sake of arguments contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted, even then the Application under Section 17 was filed with delay. It was not filed within 45 days. In a judgment passed in Bank of Baroda and anr. Versus Prasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1006 dated 11th August, 2022, Hon’ble Apex Court has held the time limit of 45 days as mandatory for filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
11. Since the Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was not filed within the Limitation period of 45 days, Learned DRT has rightly dismissed the I.A. No. 576 of 2023. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed. Impugned order dated 8th April, 2024 passed by Learned DRT-1 Hyderabad in I.A. No. 576 of
6
2023 arising out of SAIR No. 176 of 2023 is confirmed. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chairman and Managing Director and Chief General Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank for information and necessary action.
No Order as to costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.
Copy of the Judgment/ Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.
Order signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of August, 2024.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson
Dated: 22nd August, 2024 9/tp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable when filed after 45 days from the judgment of the High Court.
Whether the limitation clause in the Section 17 application stating a two-week liberty was contrary to the actual judgment of the High Court.
Whether the High Court on Writ Petition had granted liberty to approach the DRT within two weeks of the order dated 02.01.2023 allowing condonation of delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bank of Baroda and anr. Versus Prasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. and othersReferred¶28
Bank of Baroda and anr. Versus Prasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. and others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1006 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajpurohith Praveen
The Indian Overseas Bank
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
