The Tribunal has the authority to condone delays in SARFAESI Act proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with emphasis on the necessity of timely action by mortgagors.

ORDER :

VENKATESH NAIK T., J.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal(for short 'DRAT'), Chennai, on IA-339/2014 in AIR No(SA)-116/2014, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,00,00,000/- before DRAT within four weeks i.e., on or before 01.04.2015, and to restore SA registered in IR No.825/2013 and permit the petitioner to proceed in the matter in accordance with law.

2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case is that:

Late. S. Venkataswamy, father of the petitioner was a famous Musician and physically handicapped. Considering his service, the Government of Karnataka had granted 5 acres of land bearing Sy.No.262(old Survey No.154), vide order dated 23.07.1981 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, at S. Bingipura village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.

3. On 09.08.1998, Sri. Venkataswamy stood as guarantor(for short 'Guarantor') for the loan borrowed by one M/s. Cold Extrusion Private Limited(for short 'borrower') and accordingly deposited his title deeds in favour of the Karnataka Bank Limited including 14 other documents. In the year 2004, M/s. Karnataka Bank Limited, Sarakki Layout Branch, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru instituted O.A.No.150/2004 against M/s. Cold Extrusion Private Limited(respondent No.3) and nine others for recovery of money amounting to Rs.9.54 crores against borrowers and guarantors, wherein Sri. Venkataswamy was defendant No.8, and an interim order of injunction was passed restraining all the defendants from encumbering the property. Despite the order of injunction, the guarantor Venkataswamy executed a Gift deed in favour of his daughter Smt. Shobha, the petitioner herein, on 27.05.2005, though the property was subject to mortgage with Karnataka Bank. The guarantor died on 08.01.2006.

4. On 18.01.2006 under the assignment Agreement, debt was transferred to respondent No.1-M/s. Assets Reconstruction Company(India) Limited( for short 'ARCIL') under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. On 22.05.2007, the legal heirs of guarantor were brought on record and the petitioner was arraigned as defendant No.8(d) in the said O.A. proceedings.

5. Said ARCIL brought the property for sale by publishing a public notice in Hindu and local Newspaper on 20.10.2008 and under a public auction, mortgaged property was sold to one Gaurav Panjwani(respondent No.2 herein) and sale certificate was issued in his favour on 30.10.2010. On 02.01.2013, respondent No.2 in-turn sold the property to respondent No.8, Karan Ramsisaria under registered sale deed. On 04.03.2013, O.A.No.150/2004 was withdrawn by ARCIL.

6. On 04.03.2013, the petitioner Shobha filed an appeal before the DRAT, Bengaluru in IR No.825/2013, alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 1353 days in filing the appeal, through her GPA holder Ms. Gayathri. On 23.12.2013, an application to condone delay was dismissed by detailed order under I.A.No.1020/2013 holding that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DRAT at Chennai in I.A.No.339/2014, arising out of AIR(SA)-116/2014. On 04.03.2015, the DRAT, Chennai directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to show her bonafide within four weeks on or before 01.04.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this petition. On 10.04.2015, this Court while passing an interim order directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.25.00 lakh within a period of eight weeks from 10.04.2015. But, the petitioner has not deposited any amount as ordered by this Court.

8. The petitioner has taken contention that her father - Guarantor was arraigned as defendant No.8 in the aforesaid proceedings, by concocting and creating the documents in respect of the loan facilities said to have been borrowed by the Principal borrower. The Karnataka Bank has mentioned various scheduled properties pertaining to the Princ