Dismissed

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

DRAT23 Jan 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an application to condone a 643-day delay in filing an appeal against the sale certificate arising under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the appellant, such as prior litigation delays and personal hardships, insufficient to justify the delay.

What did the court decide?

Application to condone delay in filing appeal AIR (SA) 393/2019 dismissed; appeal rejected.

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad versus Dewan Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 23^rd Day of January, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON

¶4

IA 68/2020 (Delay)

¶5

¶6

AIR (SA) 393/2019

¶7

(Arising out of SA 188/2017 on the file of DRT – II, Ernakulam)

¶8

Between

¶9

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad, M/47,

¶10

S/o. Abdul Karim Sahib, Naufal Manzil, Karim Villa, Moonu Kallinmoodu, Neyyattinkara, Trivandraum. …Appellant

¶11

And

¶12

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its Authorised Officer Twinkle Plaza, Upper Ground Floor, Panavila Junction, Thycaud P.O., Trivandrum.

¶13

B.Gopakumar,

¶14

S/o G.Bhaskaran Nair, TC 50/640(3), Gangothri Kaladi, Karamana, P.O., Manacaud Village, Trivandrum.

¶15

Abdul Karim Sahib, (Deceased) S/o Muhammed, Naufel Manzil, Karim Villa, Moonu Kallinmoodu, Neyyattinkara, Trivandraum. …..Respondents

¶16

¶17

Counsel for Appellant : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji Counsel for R1 : Mr.T.K.M. Sai Krishnan Counsel for R2 : Mr.N. Senthil Kumar

¶18

R3 is given up.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant, Ld.Counsel for R1 and Representing Counsel for R2 are present.

¶21

This application is filed to condone the delay of 643 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner filed SA 188/2017, before DRT – 2, Ernakulam, challenging the Sale Certificate dated 29.06.2017. This SA came to be dismissed on 14.02.2028. Challenging the said order, this appeal is filed. Ld. Counsel further submitted that against the order passed in SA 188/2017, petitioner filed OP (DRT) No.51/2018 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which was disposed on 17.01.2019, wherein petitioner was given liberty to invoke alternative remedy before DRAT, Chennai. In the meanwhile, on 07.10.2018, petitioner’s father, Mr.Abdul Karim passed away. Ld. Counsel for petitioner also submitted that because of his poor financial conditions and regular medications to his son, petitioner could not come over to Chennai to challenge the order passed in SA 188/2017 and this had contributed to the delay of 643 days and thus seeks to allow this application.

¶22

In reply, Ld. Counsel for 1^st respondent bank submitted that SA 188/2017 was dismissed for the reason that it was filed with a delay. In spite of giving several opportunities by the Hon’ble High Court to deposit the amount and settle the issue, petitioner has not availed any opportunities. Ld. Counsel further submitted that only in 3^rd sale notice, sale ended successfully and the Auction purchaser was handed over with the possession of the schedule property. Therefore, Ld. Counsel submitted that the delay is huge and prayed for dismissal of this application.

¶23

Representing counsel for R2 submitted that she adopts the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for 1^st respondent bank.

¶24

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶25

¶26

While reading the order passed in SA 188/2017, it appears that the SA itself was not filed within the mandatory time of 45 days. It is also observed in Para 19 of the said order that “ sale was completed by registration of the sale certificate in favour of the 2^nd respondent and as such, the applicants lost their right of redemption as well. It could be seen that sufficient indulgences were shown by the Hon’ble High Court for the applicants to ward off their liability, but they have not availed of the opportunities granted and that the applicants have not honored any of the commitments made before the Hon’ble High Court. All these would go to show that the intention of the applicants is only to protract the litigation indefinitely and not to remit the dues payable to the secured creditor. ” With these observations, SA 188/2017 was dismissed.

¶27

This Tribunal had gone through the records and finds that the SA 188/2017 itself was not filed in time, but filed with a delay. It is also seen that despite sufficient indulgences shown by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala to pay certain amount as per the conditional order, that was also not complied with. The petitioner has not challenged the possession notice and the sale notices which were issued earlier. Now a 3^rd party interest has been created and the Auction purchaser is in possession of the property. The reason stated by the petitioner for condoning the delay, that he time spent before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in prosecuting the OP (DRT) No 51/2018, cannot be considered as the said OP was dismissed on 17.01.2019 but the appeal was filed on 19.12.2019 only. The other reasons stated are that his father passed away on 07.10.2018 and his poor financial conditions and regular medications to his son, are not sufficient and good enough for condoning the delay from 17.01.2019 to 19.12.2019.

¶28

In view of the same, this Tribunal finds that the reasons stated by the petitioner are not sufficient and acceptable to allow this application.

¶29

Accordingly, IA 68/2020 (Delay) is dismissed, resulting in rejection of the appeal AIR (SA) 393/2019.

¶30

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Karim Sahib Noushad v. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anjana Thankam versus Canara Bank

Over Drives rep by a Sundarraj versus Union Bank of India

Indira T.K versus Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sri Ramani Resorts and Hotels Pv Ltd. & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Sri Ramani Resorts and Hotels Pv Ltd. & Ors.

Aleyas T O versus City Union Bank Limited