Allowed

Ms Maity and Bhattarcharya Enterprise v. Hdfc Bank

DRT25 Mar 2025SA/125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal held that the applicant's Secured Assets application was filed within the 45-day limitation period under the SARFAESI Act. By excluding the date of service, the filing date fell on the 45th day. Consequently, Rule 5 compliance and condonation of delay were redundant, and the application was admitted.

What did the court decide?

The application was admitted under Section 17(1) SARFAESI Act; the matter was listed for hearing.

	order Sheet (continuation)
Case NO. ND	N/847/2024 MS. MAITY AND BHATTARCHARYA ENTERPRISE Vs BANK	HDFC
Date of	Order with Signature	Office action with date and dated Signature of Partie when necessary
the Order
25/03/202	Ld. Counsels Mr. Soumik Basu, Ms. Sanjukta Ray and Ms.
5	Madhumita Chatterjee appeared for Sarfaesi Applicant.
	Ld. Counsels Mr. Nimish Mishra and Ms. Kasturi Dasgupta appeared for Respondent Bank.
	The order is in respect of admission of SA which was registered as NDN/847/2024. Matter was heard on 28/01/2025 on the question of limitation. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank at the time of hearing has submitted that Tribunal cannot hear the application for condonation of delay as per Rule 5 of DRT Rules has not been done. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank submits that section 5 of the Limitation Act application is not applicable in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Curt in Akshat Commercial Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Kalpana Chakraborty & Ors. Applicant has relied upon authority of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Aniruddh Singh vs. Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N. Balakrishna vs. M. Krishnamurthy. The Applicant has filed this application challenging the Possession Notice dated 22/07/2024

order Sheet (continuation)

Case NO. ND

N/847/2024
MS. MAITY AND BHATTARCHARYA ENTERPRISE Vs
BANK

HDFC

Date of

Order with Signature

Office action with
date and dated
Signature of Partie
when necessary

the Order

25/03/202

Ld. Counsels Mr. Soumik Basu, Ms. Sanjukta Ray and Ms.

Madhumita Chatterjee appeared for Sarfaesi Applicant.

Ld. Counsels Mr. Nimish Mishra and Ms. Kasturi Dasgupta
appeared for Respondent Bank.

The order is in respect of admission of SA which was
registered as NDN/847/2024. Matter was heard on 28/01/2025 on
the question of limitation.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank at the time of hearing
has submitted that Tribunal cannot hear the application for
condonation of delay as per Rule 5 of DRT Rules has not been done.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent Bank submits that section 5 of the
Limitation Act application is not applicable in view of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Curt in Akshat Commercial Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr vs Kalpana Chakraborty & Ors.
Applicant has relied upon authority of the Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Aniruddh Singh vs. Authorised Officer, ICICI
Bank Ltd. and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in N. Balakrishna vs. M. Krishnamurthy. The Applicant has filed this
application challenging the Possession Notice dated 22/07/2024

Date of the Order	Order with Signature Office action with date and dated Signature of Partie when necessary
	which was received by the Applicant on 24/07/2024 and SA was filed on 07/09/2024 and Applicant prayed for condonation of two days delay. Ld. Advocate for the Respondents submits that there was no scrutiny by the Registry as per rule 5 but on perusal of the order of Ld. Registrar dated 18/12/2024 the application was scrutinized by the Registry and observed that application filed by the Applicant beyond the limitation. So, the contention of Ld. Advocate for the Respondents is not true. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act provides that, 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 authorised officer under this Chapter,1[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 measure had been taken. Applicant has challenged the Possession Notice dated 22/07/2024 which was received on 24/07/2024 and SA was filed on 07/09/2024. Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no secured
	creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature
Office action with
date and dated
Signature of Partie
when necessary

which was received by the Applicant on 24/07/2024 and SA was
filed on 07/09/2024 and Applicant prayed for condonation of two
days delay.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondents submits that there was
no scrutiny by the Registry as per rule 5 but on perusal of the order
of Ld. Registrar dated 18/12/2024 the application was scrutinized
by the Registry and observed that application filed by the Applicant
beyond the limitation. So, the contention of Ld. Advocate for the
Respondents is not true.
Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act provides that, 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 authorised officer under this Chapter,1[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 measure had been taken.
Applicant has challenged the Possession Notice dated
22/07/2024 which was received on 24/07/2024 and SA was filed on
07/09/2024.
Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act provides that no secured

creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under

Date of the Order	Order with Signature Office action with date and dated Signature of Partie when necessary
	sub-section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that in
	computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. Applicant received the Possession Notice dated 22/07/2024 on 24/07/2024 and filed this NDN(SA) on 07/09/2024 which was numbered as NDN/847/2024. After excluding date 24/07/2024 the Applicant filed this application on 45^thday of the measures. So, the application is within limitation.
	The authorities relied by the Applicant as well as
	Respondents are not necessary for consideration as the application has been filed within 45 days. The delay condonation petition is redundant. Ld. Registrar is directed to register the application u/s 17(1) as SA on 09/04/2025. As the Respondent Bank has already entered its appearance, list the matter for hearing before bench as early as possible. In the meantime, respondents are directed to file affidavit in

Date of
the Order

Order with Signature
Office action with
date and dated
Signature of Partie
when necessary

sub-section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the
financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed
under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that in

computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or
application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall
be excluded.
Applicant received the Possession Notice dated 22/07/2024
on 24/07/2024 and filed this NDN(SA) on 07/09/2024 which was
numbered as NDN/847/2024. After excluding date 24/07/2024 the
Applicant filed this application on 45^thday of the measures. So, the
application is within limitation.

The
authorities
relied
by
the
Applicant
as
well
as

Respondents are not necessary for consideration as
the application has been filed within 45 days. The delay condonation
petition is redundant.
Ld. Registrar is directed to register the application u/s 17(1)
as SA on 09/04/2025. As the Respondent Bank has already entered
its appearance, list the matter for hearing before bench as early as
possible.
In the meantime, respondents are directed to file affidavit in

Ms Maity and Bhattarcharya Enterprise v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Maity and Bhattarcharya Enterprise v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr Swapana Chakraborty and Anr. versus Bank of India

Ms Pooja Tiles and Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

Jaydeb Banik versus Authorised Officer,Smfg Grihashakti and Anr.

Icici Bank Limited versus Ambition Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Nepal Chandra Debnath and Anr.

Mr Anoop Saxena and Anr. versus Idfc Bank Limited