SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(ALLAHABAD)
V.K. Mathur, Chairperson
Manoj Kumar and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Central Bank of India through its Chairman
and Ors. —Respondents
Appeal Sr. No.159 of 2016
Decided on 12.7.2016

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Inordinate delay of 2 years and 5 months in filing appeal cannot be condoned.

Headnote:Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Section 18(1)—Appeal—Limitation—Delay of 2 years and 5 months in filing appeal—Appeal under Section 18 should have been filed within a period of 30 days from the date of order passed by Tribunal below under Section 17—Appellants did not initiate any steps whatsoever before expiry of limitation and no circumstances have been placed before Tribunal that steps were taken to file present Appeal but it was not possible to file Appeal within time—There is no sufficient cause to condone inordinate delay of 2 years and 5 months in filing Appeal before this Tribunal—Application for condonation of delay rejected—Appeal also dismissed as barred by time. (Paras 9, 14, 17 and 18)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

V.K. Mathur, Chairperson.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants in the delay condonation application. The present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SRFAESI Act’) against the order dated 19th December, passed by the learned DRT, Patna, wherein the Securitization Application No. 162/2011 died by the Appellants was disposed off.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the Respondent-Bank sanctioned three credit limits for a total sum of Rs. 65.00 lacs in the years 2004 and 2005. In order to secure the said credit facilities the property was mortgaged with the Respondent-Bank. Since the Appellants failed to maintain the regularity, of the loan account therefore, the said accounts were classified as Non-Performing Asset. Thereafter, the Respondent-Bank had issued a demand notice dated 16th March, 2009 under Section 13(2) of the SRFAESI Act demanding a sum of Rs. 70,83,430.76 plus interest.

3. It has been further averred that on 17th October, 2010 the matter was settled in the Lok Adalat organised by the DRT, Patna for a sum of Rs. 72.90 lacs against the total amount of three credit facilities. It was further averred that the Appellants-Borrowers had only deposited Rs. 31.92 lacs with the Respondent-Bank but the remaining balance amount could not be deposited by the Appellants. Therefore, the Respondent-Bank proceeded further by issuing a possession notice dated 22nd January, 2011 under Section 13(4) of the SRFAESI Act to the Appellants. Thereafter, the Respondent-Bank published the E-auction sale notice dated 4th May, 2011 scheduling the auction of the property in question on 7th June, 2011 and accordingly the mortgaged property was auctioned by the Respondent-Bank for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores to the Respondent No. 5 who is the auction purchaser.

4. The Appellants-Borrowers preferred the securitization application No. 162/2011 before the DRT, Patna challenging the auction proceedings of the Respondent-Bank, which was disposed off by the DRT, Patna vide impugned order dated 19th December, 2013 directing the Respondent-Bank to supply fresh calculation within 7 days from the date of the order to the Appellants and if, Appellants want to retain their property, then the Appellants pay the same within one month from the date of the order, as the auctioned property was still with the Appellants. It was also directed that on failure by the Appellants, the Respondent-Bank shall hand over the possession to the auction purchaser. Being aggrieved from the said impugned order, the Appellants preferred the present Appeal under Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act which is barred by 2 years and 5 months.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants in the delay condonation application and perused the record of the case.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has stated that the impugned order was passed on 19th December, 2013 by the DRT, Patna but the present Appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation since the Appellants filed a misc. Application No. 25 of 2014 on 17th January, 2014 before the DRT, Patna to challenge the order dated 19th December, 2013 passed by the learned DRT, Patna in S.A. No. 162/2011 which was decided on 25th March, 2014.

7. It was further submitted that the Appellants preferred a writ petition No. 11982 of 2014 before High Court, Patna challenging the order dated 19th December, 2013 and 25th March, 2014 passed by the Tribunal below which was dismissed on 27th April, 2016 on the ground of alternative remedy under Section 18 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002.

8. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the aforesaid writ petition was being looked after by the brother of the Appellants before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna, therefore, the Appellants had no knowledge about the order dated 27th April, 2016 passed b




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top