The Tribunal dismissed an application challenging SARFAESI action, holding it was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the 45-day limitation period mandated under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
The SARFAESI application filed by the applicant was dismissed as not maintainable due to the delay in filing beyond the statutory limitation period.
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.
ORDERS'EET
DEBTS RECOVERY RIBUNAL, SILIGURI SA/78/2025
Hasan Wooden Furniture Applicants
Vs
UCO Bank Respondents
Office action with Date Order with Sig ature date and of dated Order signature of parties when necessary. Item No36 Order No.15 19.06.2026
Present :
Counsel for the Applicants
: M. Lipi Mahanayak.
Counsel for the Respondent M. Debanjan Chakraborty and Law Officer,
Mr. Amit Kumar.
Judgment is passed in SA/78/2025 and a copy of the Judgment is kept on record.
Let the judgment be uploaded on website of the Tribunal and the Registry is directed to serve/send copy of this judgment to the parties free of cost.
Record be consigned to the record room along with the judgment.
(RAKESH PATĪ TIWARI) Presiding Officer DRT-Siliguri
1
ERY TRIBU
ECOVE
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, SILIGURI
S.A. No.78/2025
1 AMENA BIBI, W/o Late Hanif Sk, Vil Dhalarmchandra, P.O. Mahesail, P.S. Suti, Dist Murshidabad, Pin-742201.
.Applicant Vs.
1 The Authorized Officer, UCO Bank Branch, Vill & P.O. Banipur, P.S. Raghunathganj, Dist Murshidabad.
2 Zonal Office, UCO Bank, Siliguri, District- Darjeeling, Pin-734001. .Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Ms. Lipi Mahanayak
.Respondents
Counsel for the respondents
Mr. Debanjan Chakraborty.
PRESIDING OFFICER: RAKESH PATI TIWARI Date of Judgment -19.06.2026
JUDGMENT
- Instant SA has been filed by the applicant challenging the order of Ld. District Magistrate Murshidabad passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act regarding taking physical possession of the property and also challenging other SARAFESI measures.
- LA. bearing no. 519/2025 has been filed by the respondent bank challenging the maintainability of the SA on the ground that it has not been filed within 45 days of the measures taken by the secured creditor because order of Ld. D.M. is of dated 06:01.2025 but the limitation has been counted from the date of knowledge ie.
P.ei Debts RetU.siy ciligu 17.02.2025 3 Learned counsels of both the parties have already been heard.
Learned counsels of both the parties have already been heard.
As per Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act 2002, any person (including borrower),
4
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 to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measures had been taken.
5 Thus, as per the provisions, SA has to be filed within 45 days from the date of measures taken by the secured creditor.
(contd/....)
6
In case of Bank of Baroda and Anr v. M/s Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd.
and Others [2022 LiveLaw SC 671] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days or filing an application under section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcroe V. Union of India and Anr.3 this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security." 7 Question arises that whether the limitation of 45 days can be counted from the date of knowledge?
8 Earlier in case of M/s Deccan India Pvt. Ltd & Ors vs Canara Bank & Ors (2022 SCC Online CAL.3737) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had held that if 45 days of limitation is not counted from the date of communication of action, the provision would be rendered arbitrarily ineffective but this order was challenged in intra-appeal by the bank [ Canara Bank vs M/s Deccan India Pvt. Ltd & Ors (MAT 2098/2022 with IA No.
CAN//2023)] wherein the Hon'ble High Court (Division Bench) has held as under:
"1. In course of hearing of the appeal, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner wishes to withdraw the writ petition itself.
2 In such circumnstances, since the writ petitioner desires to withdraw the writ petition, it would be appropriate to permit the writ petitioner to do so. Impugned order passed in such writ petition, therefore, cannot survive. Consequently the same is set aside.
Presiding Officer Debts Recovery TriDunal In case of Akshat Commerce Giliguri
In case of Akshat Commerce Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Kalpana Chakraborty &0rs [AIR 2010 CAL.1381, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held as under :
"Therefore, there being specific time-limit of 45 days for invoking the original jurisdiction of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which has been found to be, essence, a suit and a further tentative time-limit of 60 days for disposal of the proceedings, and giving a right to the party to complain before the appellate forum for compliance of such provisions alleging violation thereof if not completed within four months, it was never the intention of the legislature to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to such original proceeding by giving power to entertain the application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act by merely showing sufficient cause for the delay without putting any restriction upon the Tribunal and we, therefore, hold that the time period of 45 days provided in Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act
(contd/...)
3
which is original in nature cannot be extended by taking aid
of Section 5 of the Limitation Act."
11 It is pertinent to mention here that the instant SA has been filed by the applicant online
Murshidabad, the instant SARFAESI application is clearly time barred as it has not been filed within 45 days from the date of measures taken by the secured creditor.
In this view of the matter this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the instant SA of the 12.
applicant has not been filed within 45 days of the measures taken by the secured creditor and thus the SA filed by the applicant is dismissed as not maintainable without
going into the merit of the matter.
Pending lA's are also supposed to be disposed of.
of the Tribunal.
The judgment is signed and pronounced in the open Tribunal on 19h day of
June, 2026.
(RÁKÉSH PATÍ TIWARI) Presiding Officer 9 bo DRT, PASC Siliguri, Ocer Debts Rerovery Iribunal Siliguri
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the limitation period of 45 days under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act runs from the date of the secured creditor's measures or from the date of knowledge.
Whether Section 17(1) proceedings under the SARFAESI Act can be extended by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bank of Baroda and Anr v. M/s Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd.Followed¶41
Bank of Baroda and Anr v. M/s Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. [2022 LiveLaw SC 671]
Transcroe V. Union of India and AnrReferred¶41
Transcroe V. Union of India and Anr
M/s Deccan India Pvt. Ltd & Ors vs Canara Bank & OrsReferred¶43
M/s Deccan India Pvt. Ltd & Ors vs Canara Bank & Ors (2022 SCC Online CAL.3737) · Who else cites this
Canara Bank vs M/s Deccan India Pvt. Ltd & OrsReferred¶43
Canara Bank vs M/s Deccan India Pvt. Ltd & Ors (MAT 2098/2022 with IA No. CAN/\/2023)
Akshat Commerce Giliguri vs Kalpana Chakraborty & OrsReferred¶48
Akshat Commerce Giliguri vs Kalpana Chakraborty & Ors [AIR 2010 CAL.1381] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Hasan Wooden Furniture / Amena Bibi
UCO Bank (The Authorized Officer and Zonal Office)
Rakesh Patí Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
