Dismissed

M/s. Lifestyle Housing Systems, Micro Unit, represented by its proprietrix Mrs. M. Subbulakshmi v. Punjab National Bank

DRT4 Jul 2025MA/29/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application for condonation of delay and the underlying Securitization Challenging the sale. Holding that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act prescribes a strict 45-day limit which cannot be extended under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the Act's purpose of speedy enforcement.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the Securitization Application challenging the sale are both dismissed. The sale proceeds.

M/s. Lifestyle Housing Systems, Micro Unit, represented by its… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶2

¶3

22.07.2025

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 22^nd day of July, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No. 29 of 2025 in SA No. 67 of 2025

¶8

M/s Lifestyle Housing Systems, Rep. by its proprietrix Mrs. M. Subbulakshmi, 2. Mrs. M. Subbulakshmi, W/o Mr. K. Muthuram 3. Mr. K. Muthuram S/o Mr. Kechaia All 3 are residing at No.5, M.G.R. Street, Cholavaram Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai – 600 044. ….Applicants

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

The Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank, Circle Sastra Centre Chennai South, No.769, 2^nd Floor, Spence Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. ….Respondent

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. D. Murugan Counsel for respondent : M/s. S. Vaidyanathan

¶13

ORDER ON MA No.29/25 IN SA 67/2025

¶14

The present Securitization Application [SA] is filed under sub section [1] of S.17 of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Asset and

¶15

Enforcement of Security Interest Act,2002 (for short the ‘Act’) challenging

¶16

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶17

¶18

22.07.2025

¶19

the action and the measure taken by the secured creditor under the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 [for short the Rules].

¶20

The applicant has challenged the Sale held on 20.02.2024 pursuance of the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 and the outstanding amount due as per Sale notice is Rs.2,56,63,702/-

¶21

3. Pleadings of the applicant:

¶22

3.1 As the present SA is not filed within a period of 45 days, applicant has filed an MA No.29/25 under Section 5 of the limitation act to condone the delay of 38 days in challenging the sale held on 20.02.2024. The Affidavit of 3^rd applicant Mr. K. Muthuram is filed along with the MA.

¶23

3.2 The present SA is filed challenging the sale held on 20.02.2024 pursuant to the sale notice dated 30.01.2024 which is produced at Page No.318 in Volume II of the SA which is the 9^th Sale notice issued by the respondent bank to recover the outstanding amount due in all the loan accounts of the applicants. .

¶24

3.3 There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of the Sale notice, admittedly the applicant has filed the present SA challenging the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 on 14.05.2024 and represented on 24.05.2024 and finally on 15.06.2024.

¶25

3.4 Evidently, the present SA challenging the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 is not filed within the period of 45 days as required under Section 17 of the Act. Hence the applicant has filed MA No.29 of 2025 a petition to condone the delay of 38 days in SARFAESI Application under

¶26

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶27

¶28

22.07.2025

¶29

Section 5 of the limitation Act. In fact affidavit has been filed along with condone delay application contending that sale is held on 20.02.2024 pursuant to the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 and as the respondent have not followed the mandatory provisions of law in classifying all the three accounts NPA, procedures in issuance of Demand Notice and Possession Notice is itself null and void

¶30

3.5 Subsequently the property right is under threat and prays for restraining the proceeding of sale held on 20.02.2024. It is further contended that the 9^th Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 was issued by the respondent bank scheduling the sale on 20.02.2024 and challenging the same in SA SR No.71/2024 in Diary No.1667 of 2024 was filed through online on 16.02.2024 and filed the physical copy on 17.02.2024 which was returned on 19.02.2024.

¶31

3.6 It is further contended that the applicant was not aware of the status of the sale conducted by the bank, however received a message on 28.03.2024 regarding Cash Credit and Over Draft accounts as if amounts is credited and enquired Bank Manager, who responded as unknown of facts, applicant also contends that he received a message as all the three loan accounts were doubtful debt. In order to confirm the sale, applicant had requested to provide statement where in the sale is confirmed and immediately filed SARFAEASI applicant challenging the sale.

¶32

3.7 The respondent has intimated about the result of the sale and the

¶33

sale status which caused a delay of 37 days in filing of the SA. It is

¶34

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶35

¶36

22.07.2025

¶37

admitted that the applicant ought to have filed the SA within 45 days from the date of sale held and could not file in time which was ended on 05.04.2024 resulting in 38 days delay of filing the SA. The applicant contends that he has got fair chance of success as respondent committed series of violation on SARFAESI Act and Rules. Further the applicant the applicant prays to condone the 38 days delay in filing the SA.

¶38

4. Objections of the respondent bank:

¶39

4.1 The Respondent Bank has filed their Counter Affidavit inter alia contending that the present SA which is filed as per the directions of the Hon’ble Tribunal in NDN 1167/2024 which isa delay of 37 days in filing the SA challenging the sale held on 20.02.2024 in terms of Sale notice dated 30.01.2024. The counter is limited to the legality of the petition for delay in presenting before the Tribunal. It is contended that the Section 13(2) Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023 was issued by the Respondent bank

¶40

4.2 The Respondent bank submitted that judgment in Anirudh Singh

¶41

vs Authorized Officer dated 3 January 2024 before the Madhya

¶42

Pradesh High Court , cited by the applicants, relies primarily on the judgment in Baleshwar Dayal, which has been amply analyzed and explained by the Hon’ble DRAT Kolkata in Authorized Officer, State Bank of India vs. Sri Kallam Peri Reddy, Appeal No.16 of 2020, against order of DRT Vishakhapatnam– date of judgment 14^th March 2023, as not being relevant to the condonation of delay in filing application u/s 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, as under:

¶43

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

22.07.2025

Quote:

Ld. DRT has allowed the M.A. filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act by placing reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal case (supra). At the very outset it would be relevant to observe that in the case of Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court had dealt with an issue relating to condo nation of delay in filing appeal u/s 18(1) of the Act of 2002. In paragraph 9 of the judgment Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the case of the Transcore Vs Union of India reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 and it was held that RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act are complimentary to each other. It was further held that power of condo nation of delay was expressly applicable by virtue of Section 18(2) of the Act read with proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act. Learned DRT has wrongly placed reliance upon the judgment and wrongly interpreted the ratio of the judgment by holding that DRT has power to condone the delay in filing S.A. u/s 17 of the Act.

¶48

As far as question of condonation of delay in filing application u/s 17 of the Act is concerned it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. M/s Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. & Ors reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1006 decided on 11.08.2022 that reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application u/s 17 of the Act can be inferred for the purpose of and object of enactment, SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. Hence, it is clear that period of limitation of 45 days for filing an

¶49

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶50

6 22.07.2025

¶51

application u/s 17 of the Act of 2002 is mandatory which cannot be extended or delay in filing the application u/s 17 of the Act cannot be conducted.

¶52

In WP(C) No.8100 of 2019 The Urban Cooperative Bank Vs. Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal & Anr. Decided on 12.05.2021 by the division bench of Hon’ble Orissa High Court at Cuttack Reliance was placed upon the judgment decided by Three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. where it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied only to original application u/s 19 of the RDB Act and not to an appeal u/s 30 thereof. It was further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 14 that:

¶53

“ 14. The RDB Act is a special law. The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides that the Legislature has provided for application of the Limitation Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19 only. The appellate tribunal has been conferred the power to 4 condone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act. The proceedings before the Recovery officer are not before ta Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings before the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent for exclusion was express. The application of Section

¶54

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶55

22.07.2025

¶56

¶57

5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period of 30 days u/s 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery officer therefore cannot be condone by application of section 5 of the Limitation Act.” Accordingly it was held that DRT has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal u/s 17(1) of the Act of 2002 or application u/s 30(1) of RDB Act.

¶58

4.3 The applicant has filed another application in SA No.401 of 2024 challenging the Section 14 order dated 17.05.2024, the subject matter in this application was sold in e-auction dated 20.02.2024 and the possession was also taken on 20.05.2024 as per the orders of the Hon’ble CJM Chengalpattu. Thus it is clear that the applicant has filed SA No.401 of 2024 challenging the subsequent action, knowing fully well that the sale had taken place on 20.02.2024 and the purpose of challenge to the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 is not within 45 days

¶59

4.4 Further the applicant have not complied with the Interim Order dated 10.07.2024 in SA No.401/2024 and pursuing the present SA for condonation of delay where in the possession is already taken consequent to the sale. Hence the present SA is barred by principle of “collateral estoppel” and “res judicata” when the property is already sold and the Sale Certificate also been executed in favor of the successful bidder.

¶60

4.5 It is a settled law that the person seeking for a condonation of delay must explain each and every day delay with proper reasons acceptable to

¶61

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶62

¶63

22.07.2025

¶64

the settled law. Hence the respondent prays to dismiss the NDN 1167/2024 which is numbered as SA 67 of 2025.

¶65

Heard both sides of the Counsels and perused the records of the case.

¶66

5.1 The applicant borrower is a proprietrix firm represented by Mrs. M. Subbulakshmi the 2^nd applicant here in. The 3^rd applicant Mr. K. Muthuram stood as mortgagor and mortgaged his properties towards the credit facilities availed by the applicant. The first applicant had availed Cash credit of Rs.80.00 lakhs and the 3^rd applicant had availed Term Loan of Housing for Rs.25.00 lakhs and Over Draft facility for Rs.25.00 lakhs

¶67

5.2 Due to defaults in the repayments, the bank have classified the accounts as NPA on 30.07.2016 and 29.05.2016 and initiated the measures under the SARFAESI Act. Consequent to the classification of NPA, bank has issued the Demand Notice dated 12.01.2023 and Possession notice dated 16.03.2023 claiming the entire outstanding amount due in all the loan accounts.

¶68

5.3 Admittedly the applicant is the borrower has filed the present SA challenging the present SA challenging the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 where in the sale is held on 20.02.2024. The main contention of the applicant is that they were not aware of the sale held or the status of the sale and came to knowledge of the sale after the statement of accounts were received cannot sustain, as admittedly the applicant received the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 which is the 9^th sale notice.

¶69

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶70

¶71

22.07.2025

¶72

5.4 Further the 2^nd applicant has received the sale notice on 02.02.2024 where in the sale notice sent to 1^st applicant returned on 03.02.2024 and 05.02.2024 and returned unclaimed on 10.02.2024, the respondent have produced the Sale notice and the returned RPAD covers and Acknowledgement cards at Page No.13 and 14 of the written submissions. Further it is also seen that the Sale notice is also affixed on the secured assets which is evident from the photographs produced by the bank at Page No.19 of the written submissions.

¶73

5.5 Subsequently the Sale notice is also published in Two Newspapers, one in “The New Indian Express” (English) and another in “Dinamani” both dated on 01.02.2024 which evident from Page No.16 to 18 of the written submissions. Hence the contention that the applicant was not aware of the status of sale cannot sustain. As he was fully aware of the sale being auctioned on 20.02.2024

¶74

5.6 The 2^nd applicant has received the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024 on 02.02.2024 who is none other than proprietrix, of 1^st applicant firm who have challenged the Sale notice dated 30.01.2024. Evidently the SA is filed on 14.05.2024 and there is no justifiable reason given to condone the delay of each days. Further applicant has filed an MA No.29 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in SARFAESI Application under Section 17(1) of the Act, cannot be condoned as per the order of the Hon’ble DRAT Chennai in the case title “Smt. M. Subathra W/o Mohan. Vs. State Bank of India” as Para 14 is reproduced here under:

¶75

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶76

¶77

22.07.2025

¶78

14. In the said circumstances, if an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is entertained in an Application filed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, it would detail the very purpose of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Moreover, it is seen that no sufficient, acceptable and satisfactory reason is given for delay of 278 days in filing the application in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. In the said circumstances, this Tribunal finds that order dismissing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is just and proper and it requires no interference .

¶79

5.7 Now, considering the delay application, the Tribunal is posed with the question whether the Tribunal can condone the delay under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act?

¶80

For appreciation of the facts S.17(1) is extracted as under: -

¶81

S.17(1):

¶82

Application against measures to recover secured debts (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, [may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:

¶83

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower.]

¶84

[Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or

¶85

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶86

11 22.07.2025

¶87

the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section(1) of section.17.]

¶88

5.8 A reading of the above provision it is palpable that there is no provision made by the Parliament for condonation of delay in approaching the DRT against the measures, no matter whatever be the cause and howsoever justifiable it may sound. Unless power to condone delay is legislatively granted expressly or by inference, the Tribunal cannot condone delay. It is the indication of Parliament that one who wants to have redressal must knock the doors of DRT within 45 days and subsequently those doors should permanently stand closed. In other words, law does not come to the aid of those who are sleepy & late.

¶89

5.9 Thus, it is clear that any person aggrieved by any measures under Section 13[4] is required to approach the Tribunal under S.17 within 45 days from the date of the measure. Evidently, the present SA challenging the Sale notice dated 01.03.2024, fixing the sale on 20.03.2024 is not filed within the period of 45 days and the same is filed with a delay of 230 days.

¶90

5.10 This view of the Tribunal is confirmed by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Bank of Baroda – Vs.ParasaadilalTursiramSheetgrah Pvt. Ltd, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 671 , at para 12, observed that a time limit of 45 days

¶91

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶92

¶93

22.07.2025

¶94

for filing an application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is provided for quick enforcement of the security is as under:

¶95

“ The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr. this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. It is unfortunate that proceedings where a property that has been brought to sale and third-party rights created under the provisions of the Act, have remained inconclusive even after a decade.”

¶96

5.11 Further the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Akshat Commercial Pvt Ltd. Vs. KalpanaChakroborty has taken view that S.17 is mandatory and therefore the question of condoning the delay does not arise. If the Parliament intended that DRT should have power to condone delay, it would have enacted a provision like S.5 of Limitation Act to SAFAESI Act. As it consciously chosen not to do it clearly emphasis the purpose of the SARFAESI Act.

¶97

5.12 The Tribunal is of the view that DRT has no power to condone delay in an application under S.17 of the Act, as it is a special law for speedy recovery of money due to bank in enforcing the security available to them is reinforced at para 65 of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP Vs. Bafna

¶98

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶99

13 22.07.2025

¶100

Motors [Mumbai][P] Ltd., reported in [2024] 2 SCC 1 at para 65 which is reproduced here under:

¶101

“The SARFAESI Act is a special law containing an overriding clause in comparison to any other law in force. The SARFAESI Act is a special law of recovery with a paradigm shift that permits expeditions recovery for the banks and the financial institutions without intervention of Courts. If the general law is allowed to govern in the manner as sought to be argued by the borrowers, it will defeat the very object and purpose….”

¶102

5.13 Therefore, it is obvious that when a special legislation grants a right of action it is subject to certain conditions and create a forum for its implementation, that right becomes exercisable on satisfying such conditions and not otherwise and Limitation period is one such condition.

¶103

5.14 It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

¶104

matter of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:-

¶105

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶106

¶107

22.07.2025

¶108

"Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds".

¶109

Hence, the legal maxim “duralexsedlex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.

¶110

5.15 The question whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal can entertain an application under S.17 of the Act after 45 days of measure referred to in sub section [4] of S.13 is no more res integra.

¶111

5.16 The Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1797 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.22192 of 2007 in the case titled

¶112

K.PJayan vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd

¶113

and others decided on 31.08.2015 had categorically held that the power to condone delay in entertaining an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is not conferred on the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It further held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal cannot consider an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The relevant paras is extracted as under:

¶114

“7. Referring to these provisions the contention urged before us is that since section 24 of the RDB Act makes Limitation Act applicable and as the DRT constituted under the RDB Act is conferred with jurisdiction under section 17, Limitation Act governs applications made in a proceedings under section 17 also. We are unable to accept this contention. Both the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act are independent enactments, although

¶115

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶116

¶117

22.07.2025

¶118

certain provisions of the RDB Act are made applicable in respect of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act also. However, that does not mean that every provision of the RDB Act would apply to every proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. In so far as this case is concerned, proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI Act and in view of the provisions contained in section 17 conferring jurisdiction on the DRT constituted under RDB Act application is made by the appellant before the DRT. That does not mean that provisions of section 24 of the RDB Act governing the proceedings taken thereunder would get automatically attracted to such proceedings before the DRT. Therefore, the contention raised relying on section 24 in so far as this case is concerned is only to be rejected and we do so. This is further clear from section 36 of the SARFAESI Act, which confines the applicability of the Limitation Act to measures under section 13(4) of the said Act.”

¶119

5.17 Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has also considered the issue in the case titled The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. K.J.

¶120

George, order dated 02.11.2020 has placed reliance on K.P. Jayan V.

¶121

Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation and has held that DRT has no power to condone the delay u/s.17 of the Act.

¶122

5.18 As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, an application against measures to recover secured debts, must be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken. It further observed that "The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the

¶123

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶124

16 22.07.2025

¶125

security, which can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr, this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security.

¶126

5.19 Additionallyin the instant matter the applicants have failed to make a case to condone each day’s delay by producing the medical records in support of their case without any justifiable reasons. However, the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and in support of its view, the reliance is placed on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam where it is observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed, if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. The court also observed "The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

¶127

5.20 The Hon’ble Apex Court also noted the following observations made in ManibenDevraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai , (2012) 5 SCC 157, while dismissing the SLP:

¶128

"The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they

¶129

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶130

17 22.07.2025

¶131

approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation."

¶132

5.21 The Tribunal also places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in the case of Kailasam P – Vs.- The Karnataka Bank Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Officer in Writ Petition No.11273 of 2024 (GM-DRT) has held that:

¶133

“law of Limitation fixes upon a particular period within which a party is entitled to institute legal proceedings and if he fails to do so, ordinarily the cause of action dies subject to just all exceptions. Law of Limitation is statute of repose. True it is that any welfare State like ours is bound in good faith to furnish its citizens all needful legal remedy however it is not bound to keep its Courts and Tribunals open ad infinitum. If an aggrieved person neglects or refuses to apply for redress within the prescribed period of limitation, his claim is lost in the lapse of time.”

¶134

5.22 In other words, the statutory time of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act is mandatory and no discretion has

¶135

been conferred upon the DRT to extend such period. It is pertinent to note that the Securitization Act is for quick enforcement of the security

¶136

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶137

18 22.07.2025

¶138

interest created favouring the respondent bank for the recovery of the amount due.

¶139

5.23 In fact the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder cast an obligation upon the secured creditor for strict compliance of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder. Each measure is to be followed meticulously giving a time frame to proceed further. Firstly, the measures can be initiated after the account is classified as NPA, then issuance of statutory notice ie., demand notice demanding outstanding due to be repaid within 60 days.

¶140

5.24 The secured creditor must wait for completion of 60 days and then proceeds further under S.13[4] possession notice which is challengeable within a period of 45 days. Similarly, the Order of CJM or DM is also to be challenged within 45 days. In other words, ample opportunity is granted by the Act for an aggrieved person to invoke his right of appeal under S.17 of the Act within a period of 45 days from the date of measure. The provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder puts the borrower/guarantor/mortgagor notices in advance before taking measures under Section 13(4) of the Act read with Rule 8 and 9, giving the aggrieved person ample of time and opportunities to assail measure within a period of 45 days.

¶141

5.25 Thus, the provisions of the Act and Rules ensures that the borrowers have advance notice of the proposed measure to be taken by the secured creditor. The judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶142

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶143

¶144

22.07.2025

¶145

Bank of Baroda – Vs.-ParasaadilalTursiramSheetgrah Pvt. Ltd

¶146

has given a quietus to the conundrum which existed until that time on the power of the DRT to condone the delay in filing an SA after the statutory period of 45 days provided under Section 17(1) of the SARFEASI Act.

¶147

5.26 The Tribunal also places reliance on Order dated 27.06.2023 passed in MA [SA]32/2021 by the Hon’ble DRAT Chennai has held that the statutory period of 45 days in challenging the measures cannot be condoned. The further reliance on the judgment dated 13.06.2025 passed by Hon’ble DRAT Chennai in MA.[SA] 31/2022,wherein it is held that if an application under S.5 of Limitation Act is entertained in an application filed under S17 of SARFAESI Act,2002, it would derail the very purpose of the SAFAESI Act.

¶148

For the foregoing reasons, the present MA No.29 of 2025 in SA No.67 of 2025 stands dismissed. Consequently SA No.67 of 2025 also stands dismissed. Interim Order granted, if any stands vacated, pending IAs are disposed of in terms of this final order. No order as to cost.

¶149

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶150

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 22^nd day of July, 2025)

¶151

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶152

¶153

22.07.2025

¶154

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶155

(As given in Demand Notice)

¶156

All that piece and parcel of land measuring 2400 sq.ft. with building (GF and FF) at plot No.28, Old Door No.2, New Door No.5, MGR Street, Cholavaram Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai 600 044 comprised in Old Parmaish No.755/2, 755/1, 756/, 757/1, and 745/1 S.No.208/4, Patta No.2137, as per patta new S.No.208/1A1A1A1A/1A1A1C Situated at Old No.129, New No.100, Pammal village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram, District.

¶157

Bounded on North by Plot No.17, South by 30 ft road, East by Plot No.27, West by Plot No.29.

¶158

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

¶159

(As given in Sale Notice)

¶160

All that piece and parcel of land and building (Ground, 1^st and 2^nd Floor) bearing Plot No.28 measuring an extent of 2400 sq.ft., an approved layout No.LPDM/DTP No.126/64, bearing Old Door No.2, New Door No.5, MGR Street, Cholavaram Nagar, Chrompet, Chennai 600 055 comprised in Old Parmaish No.755/2, 755/1, 756/1, 757/1, and 745/1 S.No.208/4, Patta No.2137, as per patta new S.No.208/1A1A1A1A/1A1A1C Situated at old No.129, New No.100, Pammal village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram, District vide and building permission in No.182/13 and PPA No.122/13 issued by Pammal Municipality (CMDA), Previous approved plan PP No.160/95, Lr No.513/95 dated 13.10.95 situated within registration sub-District of Pammal (Previously Pallavaram) Registration District of South Chennai

¶161

Bounded on the

¶162

North by Plot No.17,

¶163

South by 30 ft wide road, East by Plot No.27,

¶164

MA No.29/25 IN SA No.67/2025

¶165

¶166

22.07.2025

¶167