The Special Leave Application challenging the bank's demand and possession notice was dismissed for being barred by limitation, as the Tribunal held it lacks power to condone delay.
The Special Leave Application was dumped as not maintainable due to limitation bar.
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.
Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi
sN73t2023
RIVID Mediaids Ltd. & Ors Vs SCB
10.02.2023
Item no. 17
Present: Sh. Umesh Sharma, Counsel for the SA applicant Ms. Aakriti Gautam, proxy for Ms. Reema Khorana, Counsel for the respondent bank
Matter is taken through VC
IA Nos. 24112023 &24212023
the demand notice, the overdue amount is -il only a sum of {36.0 Lakhs,
SA 319 of2022 Subha5h Brothers v Shriram Crly Union Finarce Ltd & Ors
2
which the applicants are willing to pay. It is prayed to restrain the respondent bank to take further measures under the .SARFAESI act, 2002, as it shall take away the roof from LRs of the mortgagor, one of whom is a widow, 85 years of age and others are his daughters
.\
(Deepak Natfiiwari; Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Delhi Additional Charge DRT-II, Delhi
nr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Special Leave Petition challenging the notice of possession under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable despite apparent delay.
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing the petition challenging the impugned notice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subhash Brothers v Shriram Crly Union Finarce Ltd & OrsRelied on¶12
SA 319 of 2022 Subhash Brothers v Shriram Créer Union Finance Ltd & Ors
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RIVID Mediaids Ltd. & Ors
SCB
Deepak Nathwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
