Allowed

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao v. State Bank of India

DRT6 Oct 2025SA/315/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an interim application by the State Bank of India to reject a Securitisation Application as it was time-barred. The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, rendering the application liable to be dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No. 315 of 2022 filed by the applicant was rejected as being barred by limitation.

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

THE DEBTS^{RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-IAT HYDERABAD} DATED THrS^{THEO6th DAY OF, ocroBE& 2025} PRESENT: SRI.^{GUMMADI GOPICHAND} HON,BLE PRESIDING^OFFICER

¶2

rA NO. 1058 0F 2023 IN sA. NO. 31s OF²⁰²²

¶3

Between

¶4

The State Bank^{of India,} At. RASMECCC,2nd^{Floor, KNAREstates,} Godown Road,^{Nizamabad-503002.} And others^.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

Chilkalapudi Seetha^{Rama Rao,} R/o. H.No.6-88-L8/t4,^{Sai Nagar} Colony, Borgaon^{(P) Village,} Mugpal Mandal,^{Nizamabad District.} And others,

¶8

.... Respondent/s

¶9

DOCKET ORDER^DT. 06.1O.2025

¶10

This Interlocutory^{Application is filed by the Petitioners/ Respondents No.1 to} 3 under order^{7 Rule II of cPC r/w section 17 of SARFAESIAct,2002 and} Section 22(21 ofRDB^{Act, 1993 to reject sA 315122as barredby limitation.} the Petitioners in^the Present The Respondents^No.1 I.A. The sole APPIi he SA'&sitarrz Respondent/APPlicant^{in the} .i^i. I.A. R No.4 fus7 in are arrayed as^ResPondents present No.2 to 5 in the I.A. 050cI ,tlfi^* ,e ^^i:l W;tr,,#'

¶11

In the affidavit filed by the^{Chief Manager ofthe 1"t Petitioner,he averred that} Respondent No.5 and his^{son M.Dinesh Reddy availededucational loan of} Rs.6.50 lakhs from the State^{Bank of Hyderabad (presentlymergedwith State} Bank of India, Petitioners^No. 1&3^{herein)by mortgagingthe schedule} property and thereafter, they committed^{defaultin repaying theloan} outstanding dues and so,^{the 1"t Petitioner hereininitiated proceedings under} the provisions of SARFAESI^{Act,2OO2 and issued demand notice,possession} notice and also sale notice and^{finally auctionwas conducted on 24.12.2019} in respect ofthe schedule^{property and in the said auction, Respondent No'4} herein became highest bidder^{and sale certificate wasissued in his favour} and the sarne was registered^{on 26.08.2020. Thereafter,possessionof the} schedule property was taken^by the^{Respondent No.7 and the same was} delivered to the auction^{purchaserby the 1st RespondentBank.}

¶12

Subsequently, the Applicant in the^{SA Iiled Writ Petition No.23714} l2O2O before the Hon'ble High^{Courtof Telangnaaat Hyderabad challengingthe} proceedings of Respondent No.6-Collector^{dt'10.07'202Oin taking physical} possession of the schedule propert5r and also registration^{of sale certificate in} favour of Respondent No.4.^{Respondent No.5 also filed similar writ Petition} No.6l2l2O2l challenging the^{orders/proceedingsdt-l}.O7.2O2Oof the} Respondent No.6 and also the^{registration of sale certificate dt.26.O8.2O2O.} One Ms.Preethi who is the^{brottrer's daughterof Respondent No.5 also filed} similar W.P.No.734/2021 before^{the Hon'ble High Court. After hearing both} sides, the Hon'ble High Court^{by commonorder dt. 19.1O-2022, disposedof} all the said writ^petitions with^{a liberty} to^{approach the DebtsRecovery} Tribunal by filing SA.

¶13

After disposal of the said^{writ petitions,the Applicant filed SA challengingthe} sale certificate d1.26.O8.2O2O executpd^{by the 1st Respondentrepresented by} the Respondent No.2 'l' '-!:-l-'" in 'favour^{of the RespondentNo.4 and for direction to}

¶14

to hand over the^{physical possessionof the} the Applicant by declaring the^proceedings n and void.

¶15

fuN,*,."#l s;ffirg

¶16

As per the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2OO2,^any application by the aggrieved^party shall^{be filed before the Debts Recovery} Tribunal within forty five days from the date on^which, such^measureshave been taken by the secured creditor.

¶17

Along with the SA, the Applicant filed common order^passed by the^Honble High Court of Telangana dt.l9.l}.2o22 in Writ^{Petitions No.23l74l2O,} 6121202l and 73412021. In the said order, it is mentioned in^{Para No.9} which is relevant as follows:

¶18

"As and wtrcn such applications^are filed,^{we reE)est th.e Tribunalto cortsider} excluding tle peiod spent before this Court from^{the dateof} filing^{of the utit} petitions till date and for a furttrcr period of six u.teeks from todag towards computation of period of limitation. W.P.No.23174/2020^{wasfiled onO7.1.2020} W.P.No.612/2021 wasfiled on 06.01.2O21 and^{W.P.No.734/2O21 uas} filed^on 04.01.2021".

¶19

From the said order, it is clear that the Iirst writ^{petition was} filed^on 07.12.2O2O whereas the present SA is filed by the Applicant^{on 02.12.2022} whereas the writ petitions were disposed on I9.LO.2O22.^{The presentSA is} not filed within six weeks from the date of disposal^{of writ petitionsand the} Applicant is expected to file the^present SA on^{or before 30.11.2022.But the} present SA is filed on 02.12.2022. The cause of action for filing of the^present SA arouse on 26.08.2020, on which date, the^{impugned sale certilicate was} registered in favour of the Respondent No.4. So, the^{period of limitationof} forty five days prescribed for filing of Securitisation Application^as contemplated u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act,2002^{commencesfrom26.08.2020.} So, the Applicant is expected to file SA on or^{before 10.10.2020. If the} Applicant filed the SA on 11.10.2020 also, it will be treated^{as timebarred} application. So even e writ petition on 07.12.2020, the time prescribed for fili party was expired. So, even if the time spent by 'ble High Court of Telangana in prosecuting the ryrit^petitionis the SA filed by the Applicant is ^ Il 6[iT %*

¶20

hopelessly barred^{by limitation and so, the same is liable to be dismissed'} Hence the^petition'

¶21

The Applicant/Respondent^{filed their counter denying the contentionsmade} by the Petitioners^{and prayed to dismiss the I'A'}

¶22

Heard, both the^{Ld. counseland perused the material brought on record'}

¶23

Now the pointfor^{consid.erationis whether tlrc Petitioners haue established ang} uatid grounds for^{rejectingSA 315/22?}

¶24

During the course^{of arguments,Ld. Counselfor the Petitioners and Ld'} Counsel for the^{Applicant/Respond,ent reiteratedtheir respectiveversions as} stated supra.

¶25

It is settled^{law that provisions ofsection5 of the Limitation Act are not} applicable^{for condoning the delay in filingapplicationunder section 17 of} the SARFAESI^Act,20O2.

¶26

Further, there^{is no disputeregardingthe fact that as per the provisionsof} Section L7 of^{SARFAESIAct, an aggrievedpersoncan file an applicationu/s} 17 of.the sARFAESI^{Act within fortyfive days from the date of cause of action'} Even though, in^{the presentcase, sale was conductedand sale certificate} was registered in^{favour of the auction purchaser in the year 2O2O i'e' on} 26.08.2020,thepresent^{sA 3 t5l22isfiled on 02.l2'2O22on the premise that} the Honble High^{court of Telanganain the writ petition filed by the Applicant} in SA, mad.e observation^{for excluding the period spent by them in the High} court for^{prosecuting the writ petition filed by them. so, sA 3t5122filed by} the Applicant^{is hopelesslybarred. by limitation even if the time spent by the} Applicant in^{prosecuting'fh.".,Y.tftpetitionis exempted'}

¶27

When SA 315 |Z fr1r,d by^thu{, ant is hopelessly^{barredby limitation,} there is no .tb .:. -,1^-:.- conduct a. i^any te enquiry^{in the SA.}

¶28

In view of the above facts and circumstances,^{I am of the opinionthat SA} gLSl22 filed by the Applicant is liable to be rejected as it is barred by limitation.

¶29

In the result I.A.1O5S/23 is allowed by^{rejecting SA 315122 filed by the} Applicant as the same is barred by^limitation.

¶30

Consequently, SA 3LS l22 is rejected.^{No costs.}

¶31

sdl-
Presiding Officer

¶32

!tl '''r'.' '- '
/'|'':T"+&
f fiv r,::2 ;
l lwi [ E liT ?ifi :;
'i ''J. t't
; i, r'r' . wi'
rr-'r. . -..r -;.:.,.,'!
it' :,"' :'.::t: iJ

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chilakalapudi Seetha Rama Rao v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr. Gujarlapudi Sateesh

Canara Bank versus M/S Revathi Textiles

Mr E Sudhakar versus Repco Bank

Mr Ajay Kumar Jogu versus Smfc India Home Finance Ltd.

Mr Sikander Ali versus Icici Bank Limited

Ms Shabbir and Sons versus Uco Bank