Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
KRISHNA S.DIXIT, G.BASAVARAJA
Kailasam P., Son Of P.M. Panchapakesan Iyer – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Bank Ltd., Represented BY Its Authorised Officer – Respondent
The legal document clearly states that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) does not possess inherent power to condone or extend the limitation period beyond the prescribed 45 days under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The limitation period is explicitly statutory and mandatory, and the law does not provide for any judicial discretion or authority for the DRT to entertain applications filed after this period. This is a deliberate policy choice by the legislature, emphasizing that the limitation period is to be strictly adhered to, and any delay beyond 45 days cannot be excused or condoned by the tribunal. The absence of any legislative provision for condonation indicates that the DRT's role is limited to enforcing the limitation period as prescribed, without inherent authority to extend or relax it.
ORDER :
KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
Petitioner being the guarantor for a gigantic loan of Rs.12,84,46,406.76 as quantified on 04.04.2017 is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal’s order dated 01.04.2024 whereby his application in I.A.308/2023 u/s.17…. having been negatived, his appeal in AIR No.676/2023 also has met the same fate. In the said appeal challenge was laid to the DRT order dated 27.03.2023 whereby his application in I.A.3078/2019 seeking condonation of delay in filing I.R.No.4121/2019, was dismissed.
2. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS OF THE CASE:
2.1 Petitioner availed a housing loan facility of Rs.2.90 crore from the respondent –bank. One White Horse Network Services Pvt. Ltd., had availed loan facility in all Rs.8 crore and that petitioner had furnished the subject property by way of mortgage for securing repayment. The loans having not being repaid, the bank resorted to coercive proceedings for recovery as provided under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Sec.13(2) notice was issued on 04.04.2017 followed by Possession Notice u/s.13(4) dated 08.08.2017.
2.2 Petitioner along with White Horse filed application in I.R.No.2655/2017 u/s.17(1) &
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 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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the power of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to condone delay in filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, as clarified by the Supreme....
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
