Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Jayant Banerji, Umesh M Adiga
Srinivas Manne Parayya, Son Of Mr. Manne Ramakrishna Narasimha Swamy – Appellant
Versus
Sreenivas Babu T.G., Son Of Mr. T.Govindaswamy – Respondent
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
Mandatory limitation periods under the SARFAESI Act must be strictly adhered to, and tribunals lack inherent power to condone delays beyond the defined period.
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
The presiding officer of the DRT cannot ignore statutory limitation periods prescribed in the SARFAESI Act despite alleged procedural irregularities.
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.
The limitation period for filing challenges under the Securitization Act is strict, and delays cannot be condoned, emphasizing the need for timely action in debt recovery matters.
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.
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
