Allowed

Nihar Ranjhan Das v. Bank of India

DRAT19 Feb 2025REGULAR APPEAL/36/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a DRT order dismissing a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable. Relying on the Orissa High Court judgments in Sudeshna Dei and Sri Murarinath Sharma, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the DRT to reconsider the limitation issue.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.10.2011 set aside; Appellant directed to proceed in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Nihar Ranjhan Das versus Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Appl. No. 36 of 2017 (Arising out of Dy no.194 of 2010 in DRT- Cuttack)

¶4

19.02.2025

¶5

Nihar Ranjan Das residing at Paduapada, PO. Police Line, Dist. Balasore, Odisha.

¶6

... Appellant

¶7

--Vs--

¶8

Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Star House, 1/1D, Jayadeb Vihar, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Odisha.

¶9

2.CHIEF MANAGER AND AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF INDIA at Star House, 1/1D JAYADEB VIHAR, NAYAPALLI

¶10

3.BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF INDIA at BALASORE BRANCH, P.O &; P.S- BALASORE Odisha.

¶11

4.a Smt. Sushmita Patra, residing at Vill & po Barunsing, DIST- BALASORE 756060.

¶12

4b Master Subashis Patra, residing at Vill & po Barunsing, DIST- BALASORE 756060.

¶13

4.c Ms. HarshaliPatra, residing at Vill & po Barunsing, DIST- BALASORE 756060.

¶14

5a Smt. Jhili Rani Patra, residing at Vill & po Barunsing, DIST- BALASORE 756060.

¶15

5b. Master DibyajyotiPatra, residing at Vill & po Barunsing, DIST- BALASORE 756060.

¶16

6.TANMOY PATRA residing at ISHAN NAGAR, NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL, P.O & DIST- BALASORE

¶17

7.ARINDAM PATRA residing at ISHAN NAGAR, NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL, P.O & DIST- BALASORE

¶18

8.MISS ADYA PATRA residing at ISHAN NAGAR, NEAR CENTRAL SCHOOL, P.O & DIST- BALASORE

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellant : Mr. Debabrata Basu Roy, ld. adv.

¶21

For Respondent : Mr. Nemani Srinivas, ld. adv.

¶22

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶23

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as

¶25

respondent no. 6 to 8. None is present for respondent no. 1 to 3.

¶26

Instant appeal has arisen against the judgement and order dated 25.10.2021 passed by learned DRT Cuttack in Dy. No. 194 of 2010 whereby learned DRT dismissed the securitization application filed by appellant.

¶27

As far as facts of the matter are concerned, appellant is the borrower of the respondent bank who became defaulter. Securitization proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act) was initiated, which was challenged by the appellants by preferring an application u/s 17

¶28

of the Act with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the securitization application.

¶29

Respondent bank filed opposition stating that the delay cannot be condoned. Further, appellant is the borrower who has defaulted in making repayment of the loan. Accordingly, securitization proceeding under the Act was initiated in

¶30

accordance with law. Learned DRT adjudicated the proceeding on three issues which are as under :

¶31

¶32

(i) whether the application is maintainable;

¶33

(ii) whether the application is barred by limitation; and

¶34

(iii) whether the applicant is entitled to any reliefs as claimed.

¶35

On issue no. (i) learned DRT has arrived at a conclusion that

¶36

application is not maintainable as the property has been auctioned and sale has been confirmed.

¶37

On issue no. (ii) learned DRT has referred the judgement of Akshat Commercial Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. Vs. Kalpana Chakraborty & Ors [AIR 2010 Cal 138] decided by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. Learned DRT has arrived at a conclusion that delay in filing application u/s 17 of the Act cannot be condoned. Consequently, securitization application was

¶38

dismissed.

¶39

Feeling aggrieved, appellant preferred the appeal.

¶40

learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned

¶41

DRT has erred in dismissing the securitization application. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed

¶42

by Hon’ble Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Sudeshna Dei

¶43

Vs. Asstt. General Manager, RASMEC CCC-SARC, SBI & Ors.

¶44

[WPC No. 7905 of 2018] decided on 21.03.2023 wherein it was

¶45

¶46

held that issue of limitation has already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in Sri Murarinath

¶47

Sharma Vs. Allahabad Bank & Ors. [2014 (I) OLR 664] whereby it has been observed that Limitation Act will apply to the proceeding under SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, Hon’ble Orissa High Court has held that Section 5 Limitation Act is applicable to the proceeding under SARFAESI Act.

¶48

This matter relates to DRT Cuttack. When Hon’ble Orissa

¶49

High Court in the case of Sudeshna Dei (supra) has held that Section 5 Limitation Act would be applicable in securitization application filed u/s 17 of the Act, learned DRT erred in dismissing the application holding that Section 5 Limitation Act is

¶50

not applicable in the matter. In view of the law laid down by the

¶51

Hon’ble Orissa High Court, appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶52

O R D E R

¶53

Appeal is allowed. Order dated 25.10.2011 is set aside. Learned DRT is hereby directed to decide the application filed u/s

¶54

5 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law keeping in view of

¶55

the observation made in the body of the judgement. Costs easy.

¶56

File be consigned to record room.

¶57

¶58

Copy of the order be supplied to the appellant and the respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT. Copy of the judgement/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s website.

¶59

Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19^th day of February, 2025.

¶60

(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson

¶61

Dated :19.02.2025 07/pkb

¶62

Nihar Ranjhan Das v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nihar Ranjhan Das v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pabitra Pran Saikia versus Union Bank of India

Priyanka Shyam versus Rojot Kumar Baruah

Punjab National Bank versus Rojot Kumar Baruah

Indian Bank versus Shri Biplob Santosh Debnath

Jm Financial Assets Recontruction Company Private Limited versus Maa Durga Commotrade Private Limited

Bengal Rajnagar Realtors Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India