The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the main Original Application (O.A.) pending before the DRT under the SARFAESI Act.

JUDGMENT

Milind N. Jadhav, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order and Judgment dated 8 September 2020 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( "DRAT" for short) thereby setting aside the order dated 4 August 2020 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Mumbai ( "DRT" for short) seeking condonation of delay in filing Claim Affidavit by Respondent No. 1.

4. Before adverting to the submissions advanced by the parties, it will be apposite to consider the relevant facts briefly:-

(i) Petitioner is an Asset Reconstruction Company and acting in its capacity as Trustee of the IARC- BOB-01/07 Trust. Petitioner is an assignee of Bank of Baroda who has assigned the debt due to it from Respondent No. 2 in favour of the Petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( "SARFAESI Act" for short).

(ii) Respondent No. 1 is a guarantor in respect of the amount due and payable by Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was earlier a division of Respondent No. 1 before it was demerged into a separate entity.

(iii) Originally Central Bank of India and Bank of Baroda filed a joint suit in this Court being Suit No. 2520 of 1989 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,90,02,617.69 due and payable to Bank of Baroda and Rs. 3,25,85,341.28 due and payable to Central Bank of India together with interest thereon at the contractual rate till payment and / or realization. The aforesaid suit was transferred to DRT and renumbered as Transfer Original Application No. 2571 of 1999.

(iv) Multiple proceedings took place between the parties culminating in the Hon'ble Apex Court passing an order dated 20 November 2003 in Civil Appeal Nos. 6545 and 6546 of 1997, inter alia, directing Respondent No. 1 to execute a guarantee guaranteeing the dues in Suit No. 2520 of 1989 filed by the two banks which was pending before the DRT, Mumbai.

(v) In compliance of the Apex Court direction, Respondent No. 1 executed Deed of Guarantee dated 16 December 2003 in favour of Central Bank of India and Bank of Baroda.

(vi) Petitioner vide letter dated 29 December 2010 invoked the Guarantee dated 16 December 2003 and called upon Respondent No. 1 in its capacity as a guarantor to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 377,70,51,204.90 due and payable as on 30 November 2010 together with interest till payment and / or realization.

(viii) After invocation of the Guarantee, Original Application before the DRT, Mumbai was amended and various documents and orders were placed on record which had occurred subsequent to the filing of the suit. Winding up proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner against Respondent No. 1 which were ultimately dismissed on the ground that the Guarantee would be enforceable only after adjudication of Original Application pending before the DRT.

(ix) Petitioner filed its Claim Affidavit dated 10 April 2003 in the Original Application. Petitioner also filed its additional claim affidavit dated 4 September 2017 subsequently.

(x) By order dated 4 September 2017, DRT directed Respondent No. 1 to file its Claim Affidavit. DRT granted extension of time to Respondent No. 1 on 2 November 2017 and recorded as under:-

"The counsel appearing for IARC is present. Defendant No. 1 is called, absent, no representation. CAOD is not filed by the Defendant No. 1. Time is extended as last chance till 16th January 2018 failing which the right of Defendant No. 1 to file CAOD stands forfeited."

(xi) When the matter appeared before the DRT on 16 January 2018, the following order came to be passed:-

"The counsels appearing for Applicant No. 2 and Defendant No. 1 are present. CAOD is not filed by Defendant No. 1. Despite passing conditional order, the counsel appearing for Defendant No. 1 requested further exten