Single Judge of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the bail application for non-condonation of delay. The Court held borrowers were estopped from challenging procedural lapses after silently allowing auctions, citing statutory bar on delay.
Applicant's Special Appeal dismissed for want of condonation of delay and being barred by limitation.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW
Present: A. H. Khan, Presiding Officer
Date of order 24-08-2022
S.A. No.457 of 2022
Present:-
| Counselforthe applicant | Mr.MadhukarDixit |
|---|---|
| Counselforthe bank | Mr.RalnishK.Tiwari |
| Counselforthe auctionpurchaser | Mr.BhaskarTripathi |
I
7--
Para 18 - It may be relevant to note that the respondents (borrower) did not deny advancement of loan, execution of facility agreement, their liability and compliance of the procedure being followed by the secured creditor (appellant) prescribed under the SARFAESI Act.
Para 19 - In the facts and circumstances, when the action has been taken by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed by law and person affected has a knowledge leaving no ambiguity or confusion in initiating proceedings under the provisions of SAMAESI Act by secured creditor, in our considered opinion, such action taken thereof cannot be held to be bad in law merely on raising a trivial objection which has no legs to stand unless the person is able to show any substantial prejudice being caused on account of the procedural lapse as prescribed under the Act or the rules framed thereunder still with a caveat that it always depends upon the facts of each case to decipher the nature of the procedural lapse being complained of and the resultant prejudice if any, being caused and there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be uniformly followed in all the transactions.
) I // / .l 4,
/ r-
perspicuously reflect disingenuous conduct on the part of the borrower to gain indulgence, un fulfilred assurances and promises, their unwillingness to pay, and in the light of the law laid down by this court, we are of the view that the borrower has waived and is estopped from challenging violation of Sec.13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act and hence the first issue is decided in favour of the bank....."
"Para19 - It is also to be seen that the auction purchaser has deposited the entire sale price and the sale certificate has been issued, thus a valuable right has been created in favour of the auction purchaser. on the other hand, the SA applicant is not entitled for any relief on account of technical inegularity in affixation of the demand notice and the typographical error in issuance of the sale notice, which can be ignored in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High court in Rafeeq Ahrned Vs' State of U.P. & ors. AIR 1999 Allahabad272. lnthe said judgment, the Hon'ble High court has held that if the borrowers/guarantors are ,ot interested in repayment of the loan, they should not be permitted to play *ith the procedure of law. Further, the Hon'ble punjab & Haryana High courr in the case of M/s National rice and General Mills & ors. vs. Bank of India & ors., AIR 2009 P&H 129 has held that if any minor irregularities or error occun'ed in the process and those do not go to the root cause of the case and had not resulted in any loss to the borrowers, are to be ignored, particularly when they have never shown their inclination to pay the dues with interest."
t/L
File be consigned to record room..
v (A.){" Khan } Presiding Ollicer
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the Special Appeal is capable of being condoned given the borrowers' prior knowledge of proceedings.
Whether the conduct of the applicants amounts to a waiver under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Special Appeal is barred by limitation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Civil Appeal No.3788 of 2022Referred¶9
IWs L&T Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Il4/s Trishul Developers - Civil Appeal No.3413 of 2020Distinguished¶16
ARCE Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. IWs Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.Distinguished¶19
Bank of Baroda vs. IWs ARIT Solutions pvt. Ltd.,Followed¶24
Rafeeq Ahrned Vs' State of U.P. & ors. AIR 1999 Allahabad272Followed¶24
M/s National rice and General Mills & ors. vs. Bank of India & ors., AIR 2009 P&H 129Followed¶24
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Applicants (Borrowers/Guarantors)
Bank
Res.No.3 Auction Purchaser
A. H. Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
