Disposed

E Mahadevan v. Bank of Baroda

DRT6 Nov 2025SA/634/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT-II addressed an objection regarding a one-day delay in filing a Securitisation Application due to technical upload errors. The Presiding Officer held that the limitation issue could not be decided on Registrar's endorsement alone and kept it open for final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Registry directed to number the application; issue of limitation kept open for final determination.

E Mahadevan versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 6^th day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

NDN(SA) No.1597 of 2025

¶5

E. Mahadevan Son of Mr. Ekambaram No.6/11, Narayanasamy Street Virugambakkam Chennai – 600 092 …Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Authorised Officer Bank of Baroda Maduravayal Branch No.8, 1^st Main Road, Viswas Nagar 1^st Main Road, Maduravayal Chennai – 600 095

¶8

Mr. D. Rajesh Emmanuel Prop. of M/s BB Agencies

¶9

No.40, Pallavaram Main Road Andalkuppam, Kundrathur Chennai – 600 069 …Respondents

¶10

ORDER

¶11

This Securitisation Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the Possession Notice dated 31.07.2025 issued by the 1^st Respondent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶12

The Registry of this Tribunal has raised an objection that the SA has been filed with a delay of one day beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶13

The Objection is based on Rule 6(2) of the Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing Rules, 2020 which provides that “ the date of filing o the pleadings in the Tribunal shall be the date of submission of the last page of the pleading through the e-DRT system ”. The last page of the SA was uploaded through e-DRT system on 15.09.2025, which falls one day beyond the limitation period.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant, however, contends that the SA was presented for filing within the prescribed limitation period and that the one day delay that had occurred is solely due to technical uploading procedures. It is contended that such an inconsequential delay should not defeat the applicant’s substantive right to seek redress under Section 17 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel also drew the attention of this Tribunal to Debts Recovery Tribunal Regulations, 2024, in particular, Chapter 3 titled ‘Presentation and scrutiny of the case”, Para 8 relating to presentation of the case, and submits that the SA has been filed within the period of limitation. Ld. Counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgment of the

¶15

Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. No.901 of 2024 dated 01.02.2024 in support of his contention.

¶16

I have carefully considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It is true that the Electronic Filing Rules, 2020 define the date of filing as the date on which the last page of the pleading is submitted through the e-filing system. However, when there exists a factual dispute regarding the time and mode of such submission, and where the applicant assets that the filing was initiated within limitation, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the matter at the threshold merely on a technical interpretation of procedural rules.

¶17

It will also be pertinent to note that under Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal is guided by the principles of natural justice and not strictly bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶18

Further, when the question of limitation depends upon disputed facts, such issue cannot be decided merely on the basis of the endorsement of the Registry. The Tribunal is well within its jurisdiction to consider the same at the time of final adjudication after hearing both parties.

¶19