In Appeal No. 3/2024, the Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging the Registrar's refusal to register a Specific Appeal against a property sale. The Tribunal held that appellants, having obtained the sale certificate via RTI on 27.11.2023, filed beyond the 45-day statutory limit without condonation.
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.
Fair Order
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1 AT ERNAKULAM
DATED THIS 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT: Su. WILLYAHM, B.Sc., M.L. [DISTRICT JUDGE - Retd] PRESIDING OFFICER
Appeal No. 3/2024
BETWEEN
---Appellants
AND
1. Managing Director Union Bank of India Central Office, 239, Vidhan Veedhi Mumbai – 400 021, Maharashtra
2. Authorised Officer Union Bank of India Puthencruz Branch, Puthencruz Post Ernakulam District – 682 309
3. Regional Manager (Ernakulam Rural) Union Bank of India Pukalakatt Building Thamanam Road, Palarivattom Ernakulam, Kochi – 682 025
Appeal 3/2024
4. John Joseph S/o. Joseph Thottungal House Near Bhagavathy Temple Kizhakkambalam P.O. Ernakulam District – 683 562
5. Siji John
W/o. John Joseph Thottungal House Near Bhagavathy Temple Kizhakkambalam P.O. Ernakulam District – 683 562
---Respondents
This Appeal coming on 04.06.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Benny Augustine, Advocate for the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for the appellants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
O R D E R
Page 2 of 3
Appeal 3/2024
the order of the Registrar is unsustainable and that the appeal may be allowed.
“Any person aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Sub-Section 4 of Section 13 of the Act, taken by the secured creditor or its Authorised Officer under the Chapter III of that Act, may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within 45 days from the date on which such measure had been taken.”
But the appellants did not file the SA challenging the above said measures initiated by the 2nd respondent before this Tribunal within the period of 45 days from 27.11.2023. Instead, they filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala challenging the above said measures.
In view of the forgoing reasons, the Appeal No.3/2024 stands dismissed.
Dictated to Steno, taken down, transcribed, typed by her, corrected and Pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 11th June, 2024.
[Su. WILLYAHM]
PRESIDING OFFICER
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the debtor was aware of the sale of secured asset as per own averments made under RTI Act.
Whether limitation period of 45 days under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act was condoned implicitly by High Court.
Whether Registrar's rejection of Specific Appeal due to delay is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mathai @ T. J. Mathew & Anr.
Union Bank of India & Anr.
Su. WILLYAHM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
