IMPORTANT POINT
Appellate Tribunal under Section 18(2) and DRT while dealing with application under Section 17 of SRFAESI Act will have power to condone delay.

Ranjit Singh, Chairperson—But for the conflicting views, the issue regarding the powers of the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay in appeals filed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SRFAESI Act) would have acquired finality by now. The position in this regard is not fully settled. There may not have been need for any debate if this Tribunal had been having before it a clear path to follow. Rather, this Tribunal is in a real predicament because different Debts Recovery Tribunals whose orders are appealed before this Tribunal are located under the territorial jurisdiction of those two different High Courts which have expressed differently on the issue of power of this Tribunal to condone delay in such appeals filed under the SRFAESI Act. Often this Tribunal has found itself confronted with these conflicting views with a plea to follow one view with opposite side pleading for accepting the contrary view. This Tribunal could not afford to follow one view in cases pertaining to one state and another in the adjoining territory as was suggested though in a lighter vein. What to do and which view to follow thus become a constant nag. Over and above, all this are the divergent views expressed by different High Courts. Left with no option this Tribunal has taken up this task to find if it is possible to reconcile this divergence of opinion emanating from different judgments.

2. Some High Courts are of the view that the Tribunals constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDBFI Act) would have power to condone the delay in cases filed under the SRFAESI Act whereas some others have held differently. Almost all the judgments cited before the High Courts are the same, but still the different High Courts have expressed divergent views. This has made the task of this Tribunal rather risky and, therefore, this Tribunal is to tread this path with a great sense of caution coupled with utmost responsibility. There is no intention and rather there cannot be any intention on the part of this Tribunal to express itself on any of the views held by the. Hon’ble High Courts. The aim of this Tribunal is only to express itself on the issue involved so as to ensure smooth functioning of this Tribunal in uniform manner.

3. Initial reaction was to follow the earlier order passed by this Tribunal as that was thought to be a healthy practice to ensure continuity till the time the issue was finally settled. That course also could not be pursued as the counsel for the parties placed before this Tribunal two different views expressed by this Tribunal on this issue it was then that the Tribunal thought it appropriate to invite larger debate on the issue and take a view with due regard and respect to all the views which have been expressed on this issue by different High Courts to ensure uniformity in disposal of the appeals filed before this Tribunal.. With this object, all the cases where the issue of condonation of delay in appeals fled against the orders passed in Securitisation Application (S.A.) were listed for hearing and accordingly the Counsel have been heard. Interesting and lively debate thereafter ensued and a number of Counsel appeared to make submissions. The present two cases were adjourned for passing the order on this issue involved. Other cases were adjournment to different dates and would follow the course as per the decision which is going to be rendered in these appeals.

4. Kanti Lal Sadh and others have filed this appeal to impugn the order passed by the D.R.T. 1, Delhi dismissing the S.A. filed by them. This appeal is filed with a delay of nine days. Notice was issued on the application (I.A. No. 88/2014) where the prayer was made for condoning the delay. Further action, of course, can only follow if this delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The Counselor the applicant, Mr. Mun