Back
S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR
H. V. GOPAL S/O LATE N. VENKATA JETTY – Appellant
Versus
BANGALORE SOUHARDHA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. – Respondent
ORDER :
1. In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
(ii) Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction, quashing the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the 24th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in Crl. Misc. No. 04/2019 (Vide Annex-J).
(iii) Direction against the respondent to strictly adhere to the One Time Settlement dated 25.09.2019 (Vide Annex-G).
(iv) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed on I.A. No. 2655/2019 in D. No. 1985/2019 by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I(for short ‘the DRT’) Bangalore, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , 1963 was dismissed by the Tribunal, which also dismissed the main petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioner
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
A formal application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act is not mandatory if sufficient cause is shown, allowing courts to exercise discretion in restoring cases.
The 45-day limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned by the DRT due to lack of inherent power.
Setting aside or refusing to set aside arbitral award under Section 34 of Act and an appeal lies where an order is passed under Section 34.
The High Court lacks the authority to condone delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under FEMA, which excludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Law of Limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay and in an application filed under Sectio....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
