Delay defeats equity and can render a petition unentertainable, especially in cases where the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but failed to act in a timely manner.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a sale certificate dated 16-09-2015 and the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) passed in S.A. No. 502 of 2014 dated 13.05.2015. Therefore, in effect the petitioner seeks to call in question proceedings/orders of nine years vintage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner is a guarantor to a credit facility availed by one M/s.V.S.Lad and Sons from the 1st respondent/Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short) in a sum of Rs. 12.67 crores on 17-07-2008. The property of the petitioner was offered as security to the loan availed by the borrower. It appears that the credit facility granted to the borrower was modified and the modified sanction letter depicts that the value of the property offered for mortgage to the Bank was assessed at Rs. 8/- crores. The loan becomes sticky. The Bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI’ for short) by issuing a notice under Section 13(2) thereto. Payments do not come about. The Bank then issues a possession notice on 21-10-2013. Even then, payments do not come about. The Bank then puts the property to auction to be held on 08-03-2014 by issuing a notification on 04-02-2014. It appears that the auction failed on account of no bidders coming forward, which led the Bank to issue a second auction notice on 02-07-2014. The reserve price depicted in the second e-auction notice was Rs. 7.7 crores. The 2nd respondent is said to have participated in the bid. But, the auction appears to have fumbled again. On 22-09-2014, comes the third auction at a reserve price of Rs. 7/- crores. The 2nd respondent is declared to be the successful bidder. The petitioner then calls in question the auction sale before the Tribunal in S.A. No. 502 of 2014. This comes to be dismissed on 13th May, 2015. The dismissal is not challenged further but the petitioner started corresponding with the Bank seeking information about the auction that has taken place. Certain electronic mails are communicated during 2016 and 2017 and again, after a gap of 6 years from 14-08-2023 to 29.08.2023. The Bank then communicates the sale certificate registered on 16th September, 2015. It is challenging the order of the Tribunal which dismissed the case of the petitioner and the sale certificate dated 16-09-2015, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri K.Suman, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1-Bank.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri K.Suman, representing the petitioner would strenuously contend that there is no delay attributable to the petitioner. The Bank never divulged as to when the sale took place and who was the successful bidder. It is only when the sale certificate is communicated to the petitioner, he comes to know that the property was sold. He claims to be in possession of the property even as on today and, therefore, the petition should be entertained without reference to any delay as right to property by the petitioner is clandestinely taken away by the Bank.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel Sri Vignesh Shetty representing respondent No. 1 -Bank would vehemently confute, contending that the petitioner at all times was aware that his property is being sold, goes before the Tribunal, challenges the sale notice dated 22-09-2014, fails in the challenge, does not take it further and after nine years, only because he cannot knock at the doors of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as it is beyond limitation, is knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition. It is the case of the Bank that the petition should be dismissed with costs.

6. The learned senior counsel would join issue to contend th