Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V.MENON
A.A.Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Hong Kong And Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges regarding the sale under the sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. proceedings involve multiple lawyers representing different parties. (Para 4) |
| 3. interpretation of limitations under sarfaesi act is critical. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. doubtful judicial reasoning on limitations is discussed. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
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 3rd 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).
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.
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)
The presiding officer of the DRT cannot ignore statutory limitation periods prescribed in the SARFAESI Act despite alleged procedural irregularities.
Mandatory limitation periods under the SARFAESI Act must be strictly adhered to, and tribunals lack inherent power to condone delays beyond the defined period.
SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of security.
The High Court's stay of the DRAT's order was found unjustified as the principles of review jurisdiction were not met.
The limitation period for filing challenges under the Securitization Act is strict, and delays cannot be condoned, emphasizing the need for timely action in debt recovery matters.
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
The DRAT has the power to remand a SARFAESI application to the DRT for fresh adjudication, where the DRT has not considered various disputed issues raised by the parties, including service of notice,....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
