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

2019 Supreme(Pat) 1782

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Rahmatullah, Son of late Nabi Hasan, Proprietor M/S R.T. Enterprises - Petitioners
Versus
The Authorized Officer-Cum-Chief Manager, Central Bank Of India, Regional Office, B-Block, 2nd Floor, Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17999 of 2017
Decided On : 26-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr.Adv. Mr.Md. Kamil Akhtar, Adv.
For the Bank : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent no.3: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.

Headnote:

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 17, 35, 36 and 37 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 29(2) – SARFAESI application – Limitation – Act of 2002 shall by virtue of Section 35 take effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for time being in force – Provisions of the Act of 2002 or rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of Act of 1993 or any other law for the time being in force – Debts Recovery Tribunal being a ‘tribunal’ and not a ‘court’ provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be applied to it by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of said Act unless special statute provides for applicability of same under statutory scheme. (Paras 26, 27 and 34)

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 – Sections 17, 35, 36 and 37 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 29(2) – SARFAESI application – Limitation – By virtue of sub-section (7) of Section 17 of Act of 2002 an application under Section 17(1) has to be disposed off in accordance with the provisions of Act of 1993 and rules made thereunder – Entire provisions right from Section 19 to Section 24 of the Act of 1993 would as far as may be applicable in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of Act of 2002 – Any departure from this position will render sub-section (7) of Section 17 of the Act of 2002 redundant in eye of law. (Para 43)

Cases Referred:

Sakuru vs. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279; Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. vs. M/s. Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly, (1976) 4 SCC 464; Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker (1995) 5 SCC 5 : (AIR 1995 SC 2272) – Relied.

UCO Bank vs. Kanji Manji Kothari, 2008 (3) Bankers’ Journal 438 (Bombay); Punnusamy vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal, 2009 (3) Bankers’ Journal 401 (Madras) – Referred with Approval.

International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AIR 2017 SC 5013; Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335; Nityananda M. Joshi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1970 SC 209; Sushila Devi vs. Ramanandan Prasad, AIR 1976 SC 177; N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishanmurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123; Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi vs. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi and Bharat Bank Employee’s Union, AIR 1950 SC 188; Ganesan Rep. By its Power Agent G. Rukmani vs. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board, AIR 2019 SC 2343; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, T. Kaliamurthi vs. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf (2008) 9 SCC 306 and Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 739; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579; Town Municipal Council, Athani vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Courts, Hubli, (1969) 1 SCC 873 : AIR 1969 SC 1335; Nityananda M. Joshi vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1965) 2 SCC 199: AIR 1970 SC 209; The Commissioner of Sales Tax Act, 1948, U.P. Lucknow vs. M/s Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, (1975) 4 SCC 22 : AIR 1975 SC 1039; Kerala State Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T.P. Kunhaliumma, (1976) 4 SCC 634 : AIR 1977 SC 282; Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal, (1996) 9 SCC 414 : 1996 AIR SCW 941; Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 169; M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015(7) SCC 58; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602, T. Kalimurthi vs. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf, (2008) 9 SCC 306 and Thirumalai Chemicals Limited vs. Union of India, (2011) 6 SCC 379 – Referred.

CAV JUDGMENT :

Petitioner in the present case is an auction purchaser of a property which was subjected to a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act 2002’). He is challenging the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in SARFAESI Application no.44 of 2017 as contained in Annexure- ‘7’ to the writ application. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to reject the preliminary objection taken by the respondent bank that the SARFAESI application is hopelessly barred by limitation. It was contended on behalf of the bank that the limitation petition has been filed by the applicant after filing of the SARFAESI application which is contrary to the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWJC No.15510 of 2015. The petitioner has however raised a wider issue by taking a plea that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’) while entertaining an application under Section 17(1) of the Act of 2002 has no power to condone the delay.

Brief Facts

It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that he had purchased a portion of the land of plot no.172 and portion of plot no. 169 under khata no. 570, Tauzi no.814, Thana no.12, total area 6-3/8 decimal situated at Mauza-Kumhrar, P.S.-Sultanganj, District Patna in the auction sale for consideration of Rs.21,35,000/-. The bank accepted the offer of the petitioner and directed him to deposit 25% of the bid amount after adjusting the earnest money deposit of Rs.98,000/-. The petitioner deposited Rs.4,36,000/- in cash with the respondent-bank on 28.06.2011 and thereafter he deposited balance amount of Rs.16,01,000/- through two bank drafts, thereby he deposited the entire consideration amount of Rs.21,35,000/- on time.

It is his further case that even after deposit of the entire amount when he was not getting the possession of the property, he filed CWJC No.19421/12 with a prayer to direct the bank to deliver actual physical possession over the property. By the order dated 10.12.2013 (Annexure-1) the Court fixed 13th December, 2013 for taking over possession of the property and handing it over to the bank officials. The petitioner claims to have constructed boundary wall, room etc. on the said property. It is alleged that there had been some collusion which led to filing of two SARFAESI appeals by two different persons namely Tapeshwari Devi who filed SARFAESI appeal no.13 of 2014 in which the learned tribunal has passed the order dated 05.05.2014 which is subject matter of appeal at the instance of the petitioner before the appellate tribunal at Allahabad being Appeal no.212/14 which is still pending. In appeal no.13/14 it was claimed by Tapeshwari Devi that plot no.169 belongs to her and it was wrongly mortgaged to the bank and another SARFAESI Appeal No.101/14 was filed by one Ramashish Singh on the ground that plot no.172 belongs to him and the respondent no.3 has played a fraud by mortgaging it to the bank. SARFAESI Appeal no.101/14 came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order as contained in Annexure- ‘2’ to the writ application.

The respondent no.3 came to this Court in CWJC No.15510 of 2015 stating that no notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was served upon him. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 had full knowledge of the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 but he chose to file writ petition on 11.09.2015 after a lapse of about ten months from the date of expiry of 45 days period which is prescribed period of limitation for filing SARFAESI application under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Annexure-4 dated 24.10.2014 to the writ application is an application submitted by respondent no.3 before the Certificate Officer, Patna City in Certificate Case No.117/200

                                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                                        1
                                        2
                                        3
                                        4
                                        5
                                        6
                                        7
                                        8
                                        9
                                        10
                                        11
                                        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 telegram-icon
                                        whatsapp-icon Back to top