Mandatory limitation periods under the SARFAESI Act must be strictly adhered to, and tribunals lack inherent power to condone delays beyond the defined period.

ORDER :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-borrower.

2. The petitioners are auction purchasers of an immovable property that was sold in a public auction by the respondent No.2-Bank in exercise of its power under Section 13 (4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, [SARFAESI Act] read with the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, [Rules, 2002]. A Sale Certificate dated 06.01.2011 was issued in their favour, which was executed by respondent No.2 as authorized officer of the Bank.

3. After a period of over two years i.e., on 28.01.2013, an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was filed by the respondent No.1 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka, at Bengaluru,[ DRT] bearing No.SA.549/2014, seeking to declare the Sale Certificate dated 06.01.2011 bad in law and to be set aside and, measures taken by the respondent No.2 - authorised officer under the provisions of Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act, be declared as invalid. A further direction was sought to deliver back the scheduled property to the applicant and respondent No.2 therein (presently the estranged wife of respondent No.1, who is arrayed as respondent No.3 in the instant petition).

4. In the objections filed by the petitioners before the DRT, a categorical objection was taken with regard to the application filed by the applicant being barred by time. A statement of objections was also filed by the respondent No.2, in which a specific objection with regard to limitation was raised. However, it is contended that overlooking the objections as to limitation, the DRT proceeded to consider the point whether a sale notice, sale proceedings and sale certificate were illegal, without addressing the issue of maintainability of the application given the objections raised as to limitation.

5. In the reasons given in its order, the DRT found that the provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules, 2002, were not followed and there were material irregularities and violations by the respondent-bank in proceeding to auction the property in dispute. Accordingly, SA.No.549/2014 was allowed and the impugned notice, sale proceedings and sale certificate were set aside and declared as illegal. Further directions were also issued.

6. The petitioners then challenged the aforesaid order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal passed on 12.10.2015 before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, at Chennai, in RA (SA) 76/2015. By the impugned order of 27^th May 2019, the appeal was disposed of with the following directions :

"The counsel for appellants/auction purchasers submits that part of the order by which sale was set aside was also not correct on facts because bank has ensured the services of all notices after due compliance of mandatory provisions.

However, in view of the fact that respondent/borrower chose to remain absent despite due service and also failed to comply the conditions of DRT, lapse on the part of borrower can be highlighted before DRT itself before coming to this Tribunal.

The impugned order has already made it clear that if borrower will not comply the conditions, then the appellant will be at liberty to move the Tribunal for suitable relief required under law.

In such a situation approaching this Tribunal at this juncture seems pre-matured. Accordingly appeal stands disposed of in following terms:

The auction purchaser shall move to Tribunal highlighting the lapse and instance of non- compliance of order of Tribu