Allowed

Axis Bank v. Sundarapandian Son of Krishanan

DRAT15 Jul 2026MISC APPEAL/27/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal against an order by the DRT that condoned a 38-day delay in filing a securitization application. The Tribunal held that Tribunals lack power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays in SARFAESI applications and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.04.2024 in IA 1081/2023 condoning the delay of 38 days in filing the securitization application is set aside.

Axis Bank versus Sundarapandian Son of Krishanan — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 15^th day of July, 2026

¶3

PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

MA (SA) 27/2024

¶5

(Arising out of IA 1081 of 2023 in S.A.No. 3698/2023 on the file of DRT, Madurai)

¶6

Between

¶7

The Authorised Officer, Axis Bank Limited, 1^st floor, Pattu Arcade, 61/4B, Bypass Road,

¶8

Ram Nagar, Madurai 625 010.

¶9

The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Ilanji Branch, Tirunelveli District .

¶10

… Appellants

¶11

And

¶12

K. Sundarapandian, S/o Krishnan, No.20 Valan Street, Puliyangudi Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶13

R. Dinesh Prabhakar, S/o Mr. Rajandran, Plot No.13, Thulasivana Street, Barani Nagar, Vannarpettai, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 003. …Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Appellants : M/s. KVP Deepak Raj Counsel for Respondents : M/s. P. Nagoor Meeran -R1 R2-Ex-parte

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Aggrieved against the proceedings in SA SR. 3698/2023, dated

¶18

04.04.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, this appeal is filed.

¶19

The first respondent filed SA SR.3698/2023 to set aside the sale certificate dated 24.03.2023 issued in favour of the second respondent R. Dinesh Prabhakar pursuant to the e-auction sale said to have been conducted on 07.01.2023 in pursuance of the e-auction sale notice dated 23.11.20222. The securitization application was filed on 15.06.2023 with the delay of 38 days. Separate application in IA 1081/2023 has been filed for condoning the delay of 38 days in filing the securitization application. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, on the reasoning that the petitioner came to know only on 29.05.2023 about the sale certificate and thereafter applied for certified copy on 04.06.2023 and filed the securitization application on 15.06.2023 on receiving the certified copy of the sale certificate on 08.06.2023. Thus, the learned Presiding Officer held that the securitization application was filed in time from the date of knowledge. This order is now under challenge before this Tribunal.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the petitioners were aware of the sale notice dated 23.11.2022 scheduling the sale on

¶21

¶22

07.01.2023. In fact, the first respondent sent a letter dated 26.12.2022 acknowledging the receipt of the sale notice dated 23.11.2022 on 25.11.2022 and sought time for paying the loan amount. Despite aware of the sale notice and the impending sale, the respondents herein have not challenged the sale notice and the sale. Therefore, it is not open to the respondents to claim that they were aware of the issuance of sale certificate only on 05.06.2023 as claimed in the securitization application and claim that the securitization application was filed in time. Learned Presiding Officer, without considering that there is no power to condone the delay in filing the securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, wrongly allowed the application for condoning the delay. Thus, he seeks to set aside the order passed in IA 1081/2023 in SA SR. 3698/2023, dated 04.04.2024.

¶23

Responding to this submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the first respondent was aware of the sale notice issued scheduling the sale on 07.01.2023, in view of the representation given by him on 26.12.2022, he was of the view that the sale had not taken place. Further, no reply was sent to the representation dated 26.12.2022. Only after the sale was concluded and sale certificate issued, he came to know about the sale. Thus,

¶24

the respondents challenged the sale certificate within a period of 45 days from the date of knowledge of issuance of sale certificate.

¶25

In reply, learned counsel for the appellants-Bank submitted that the

¶26

representation dated 26.12.2022 was rejected by the Bank.

¶27

¶28

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶29

From the facts submitted and elicited above, it is not in dispute that

¶30

the first respondent was aware of the sale notice dated 23.11.2022 fixing the sale on 07.01.2023. It is true that he sent a representation dated 26.12.2022. Though the learned counsel for the appellants submits that this representation was rejected, no order rejecting the representation is produced.

¶31

Be that as it may, simply because the first respondent sent a OTS representation and sitting over the same at home without verifying as to whether his representation was considered and sale was stopped or his representation was not considered and the sale was proceeded, first respondent cannot claim that he was of the view that there was no sale held. Respondents have not taken any effort to verify whether the sale was held in pursuance of the sale notice dated 23.11.2022. Issuance of sale certificate is only an administrative action. Without challenging the sale notice and the sale, the scope for challenging the sale certificate is very limited. Respondents have not been able to make any valid ground for challenging the sale certificate. Therefore, mere filing the SA challenging the sale certificate and its maintainability is questionable. Added to that, securitization application was filed with the delay of 38 days. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai has no power to condone the delay in filing the securitization application.

¶32

Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated

¶33

7.1.2026 passed in Civil Appeal No.92/2026 (arising out of SLP(C)

¶34

¶35

N.3906/2017) in re, The Property Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohinten

¶36

Daddy Mazda held that Tribunals are not Courts and they have no power to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitations Act Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Madurai, cannot entertain the application filed under the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the securitization application under the SARFAESI Act. Ergo, this Tribunal is of the view that the proceedings dated 04.04.2024, in IA 1081/2023 in SA SR3698/2023 condoning the delay of 38 days in filing the securitization application is not in accordance

¶37

with law and is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.

¶38