The presiding officer of the DRT cannot ignore statutory limitation periods prescribed in the SARFAESI Act despite alleged procedural irregularities.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking to challenge Ext.P15 order of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), against the findings in Ext.P13 order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, in an application filed by the 3^rd respondent herein under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. The 3^rd respondent had obtained some credit facilities from the 1^st respondent-Bank. Insofar as the repayment was not punctual, the Bank initiated steps with reference to the provisions of the Act. It is not in dispute that a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was served on the 3^rd respondent herein. Later, the property was placed for sale on 17.09.2004, and the petitioner herein had participated in the sale and became the successful bidder. On the basis of the sale effected, the possession of the property was handed over, which is evident from Ext.P4 dated 19.03.2005. The petitioner contends that on the basis of the sale so effected, a sale certificate was also issued to him, and the same was also registered. Later, Ext.P8 application was filed by the 3^rd respondent herein under Section 17 of the Act, seeking to set aside the sale effected on 17.09.2004, as carried out without complying with the mandatory requirements under the Act. The petitioner herein entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement, essentially contending that the application filed as above was belated with reference to the provisions of the Statute. The DRT, Ernakulam by Ext.P11 found the issue in favour of the petitioner herein and against the 3^rd respondent. Then the 3^rd respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.34683 of 2005, and by Ext.P12 judgment dated 24.06.2015, this Court found that the matter requires a revisit at the hands of the DRT, and hence the impugned order was set aside, directing a fresh consideration. On the basis of the afore directions, Ext.P13 order came to be issued by the DRT; however, this time, finding the issue in favour of the 3^rd respondent herein holding that the application was filed within the period prescribed under Section 17(1) of the Act. The Tribunal found so, essentially on account of the contention raised by the 3^rd respondent that he was not served with any notice with respect to the alleged sale held on 17.09.2004. Therefore, the order at Ext.P13 was challenged by the petitioner herein before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, by Ext.P15 order dated 09.09.2019 at paragraph No.8, found that in view of the factual circumstances pointed out - the alleged lapse and irregularities committed by the Bank as well as the auction purchaser, the presiding officer is justified in “ignoring the defect of limitations”. Thereafter, the Appellate Tribunal directed the borrower to compensate the auction purchaser in the manner noticed in paragraph No.9 of the order.

3. It is in such circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge Exts.P13 and P15 orders issued by the DRT and the DRAT, respectively.

4. I have heard Sri.Zakeer Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.C.Eldho, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, as well as Sri.Lal K. Joseph, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent Bank.

5. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition would be as regards the findings rendered by the DRT in Ext.P13 order, with reference to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Act. The pr