Dismissed

sundaram Bnp paribas home finance limited v. ravikanth konda

DRAT3 Oct 2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application for restoration of an appeal and condonation of delay. It held that an appeal against the Registrar’s refusal to register was not maintainable due to delay beyond the statutory 15-day limit under Rule 6(5) of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994, which has no provision for condonation unlike appeals under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Application I.A. No. 368 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dismissed; Restoration application Misc. Application Dy. No. 580 of 2023 dismissed as not maintainable.

sundaram Bnp paribas home finance limited versus ravikanth… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶3

Misc . Appl. Dy No. 580 of 2023

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. 317 of 2017 in DRT-II Hyderabad)

¶5

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶6

Order No. 20 03.10.2024

¶7

Sundaram Home Finance Limited (PNB Paribas Home Finance Ltd.) Having office at F. No.102, Oxford Plaza, 1^st floor, 9,1,129, S.D. Road, Secunderabad.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

--Vs--

¶10

Ravikanth Konda, residing at Flat No.203, Sterling Apartments, Srinilayam, Pradeep Construction Plot No. 441 & 442, Sarojini Naidu Nagar, Ravindra Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶11

C. Yesu Ratnam, 2, Govt. Service, R/o P-j57, Officers Colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Ms. Anlia Biswas, ld. adv. Ms. Simran Agarwal, Ld. adv. For Respondent : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. adv.

¶14

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶16

records.

¶17

Instant Miscellaneous Application Dy. No. 580 of 2023 was

¶18

filed by the appellant on 22.09.2023 for restoration of the appeal

¶19

¶20

along with I.A. No. 368 of 2023 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for

¶21

condonation of delay.

¶22

It appears that an Appeal Dy. No. 341 of 2021 was filed by

¶23

the appellant u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 27.04.2022

¶24

wherein Registrar DRAT, Kolkata has passed an order indicating

¶25

following defects :

¶26

(i) In Vol.1 of verification page no. 20 & 23 date not given.

¶27

(ii) Deficit court fee of Rs.6745/- is required.

¶28

Time was granted to remove all the defects. Defects were not

¶29

removed. Consequently, Registrar, DRAT, Kolkata declined to register the appeal vide order dated 12.07.2022.

¶30

Thereafter, on 22.09.2023 restoration application was filed along with Section 5 Limitation application for condoning the delay.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the restoration application is filed for recalling the order passed by the Registrar on 12.07.2022. There was delay in moving the restoration application. Accordingly, application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is filed.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit

¶33

that restoration application itself is not maintainable as appeal

¶34

¶35

against the order of the Register was not filed within 15 days as

¶36

provided under Rule 6(5) of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994.

¶37

It is further submitted that delay in preferring appeal against the

¶38

order of the Register cannot be condoned.

¶39

Rule 6(5) of the DRAT (Procedure) 1994 Rules reads as under :

¶40

Rule 6(5) - An appeal against the order of the Registrar under sub-rule (4) shall be made within fifteen days of making of such order to the Chairperson concerned in his chamber, whose decision thereon shall be final.

¶41

Bare perusal of the sub-rule will show that restoration application is maintainable against the order of the Registrar, which has to be filed within 15 days. Period of 15 days as

¶42

provided under Rule 6(5) of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules is mandatory.

¶43

In the present case, restoration application itself is not maintainable as appeal against the order of the Registrar was filed beyond the period of 15 days.

¶44

Even if, the restoration application be treated as an appeal

¶45

against the order of the Registrar, then also it was filed with considerable delay and not filed within the period of 15 days from

¶46

the date of the order passed by the Registrar.

¶47

¶48

An appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is filed against an order passed under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. Sub Section 2 of Section 18 makes the provisions

¶49

of RDB Act applicable under the SARFAESI Act. Section 20(3) of

¶50

the RDB Act reads as under:

¶51

“20.(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed within a period of [thirty days] from the date on which a copy of the order made, or deemed to have been made, by the Tribunal is received by him and it shall be in such form and be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed:

¶52

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of [thirty days] if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it, within the period.”

¶53

Accordingly, delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 is liable to be condoned as provided under Section 20(3) proviso (1) of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It also finds support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs Bank of India [AIR 2015 (SCW) 4594]. There cannot be any dispute that Rules are always subservient to the provisions of the Act.

¶54

As far as question of Appeal under Rule 6(5) of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 is concerned, there is a specific time period of 15 days in preferring

¶55

¶56

the Appeal against the order of the Registrar. There is no exception for extension of the period for preferring the appeal. If it would have been the intention of the legislature that the delay

¶57

can be condoned, same provision, as provided under Section 20(3) of the RDB Act could have been made thereon also. A bare perusal of the provision would show that the legislature attached a finality to the proceedings which was the aim and object of enacting the SARFAESI Act as well as RDB Act wherein the main

¶58

purpose of the Act was to cut short the time being consumed in litigation.

¶59

In view of the above, application under Section 5 Limitation

¶60

Act. for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the order of the Registrar is not tenable. Accordingly, I.A. 368 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, restoration application being No. Misc. Application

¶61

Dy. No. 580 of 2023 is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.

¶62

File be consigned to record room.

¶63

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the

¶64

respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶65

¶66

Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the

¶67