Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J : The order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal) dated 1.4.2013 passed on I.A.No. 1400/2010, which is an application filed for condonation of delay of 65 days in filing the appeal, is assailed in these Writ Petitions. By the said order, the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the premise that Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act' for short) does not provide for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the petitioners also stands dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent Bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act against the petitioners. The said action of the Bank was assailed by the petitioners before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore, in S.A.No. 540/2009. The appeal was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal by order dated 13.5.2010. Being aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petition No. 18947/2010 was filed by the petitioners before this Court. That Writ Petition was also dismissed on the ground that there was an alternative remedy available by way of a statutory appeal under the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, the petitioners filed AIR (SA) No. 813/2010 under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Tribunal at Chennai along with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The said application has been rejected placing reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court dated 28.8.2012 in W.P.No. 13456/2012 and connected matters holding that Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act does not permit condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred these Writ Appeals (sic Petitions).

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank and perused the material on record.

4. While drawing our attention to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Sajida Begum Vs. State Bank of India (Writ Petition No. 22317/2012 disposed of on 4.9.2012) to contend that, under the SARFAESI Act, if an appeal is filed belatedly, the same could be condoned under the provisions of Limitation Act despite there being no express provision under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank placed reliance on two decisions to counter the arguments of the petitioners' Counsel to contend that, in the absence of an express provision under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the provisions of the Limitation Act would not apply and, therefore, delay in preferring the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal cannot be condoned. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Put. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, reported in AIR 2011 Madhya Pradesh 205, and a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Dr. Zubida Begum Vs. Indian Bank in W.P.No.15386/2012 and connected matters, disposed of on 28.8.2012, which has been relied upon by the Appellate Tribunal.

6. Faced with the contradictory judgments of different High Courts, we have considered the controversy in the light of the aforesaid judgments and also the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Debts Recovery Act' for short) and also the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

7. Section 17(1) and Section 17(7) of the SARFAESI Act read as follows:

"17. Right to appeal.-(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorise