Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
KRISHNA S.DIXIT, CHITTARANJAN DASH
Rohit Kumar Santuka – Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Jaiswal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. buyer challenges drat ruling on appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. counsel argues statutory limitations on borrowing. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on delay in filing applications. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT :
1. A successful auction buyer of security property is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 14.02.2025 made by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata whereby Appeal No.76 of 2024, filed by Opposite Party No.1 (hereinafter ‘borrower’) having been favoured, order dated 29.02.2024 made by DRT dismissing borrower’s S.A. NDN 2519 of 2019 has been set at naught and matter is remitted to the DRT for disposal afresh, on merits.
3. After service of notice, learned Panel Counsel of the Bank has put in appearance. However, the borrower has chosen to remain absent & unrepresented despite proven service of notice, as vouched by Postal Track Record. His name was called out by the Court Master on our instruction thrice, loudly and there is no response. That would not deter the Court from deciding the cause brought before it in accordance with law. Learned Panel Counsel appearing for OP Nos.2 & 3 (hereafter ‘lender-Bank’) makes submission in just
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 45-day limitation period under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and cannot be condoned by the DRT due to lack of inherent power.
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
Mandatory limitation periods under the SARFAESI Act must be strictly adhered to, and tribunals lack inherent power to condone delays beyond the defined period.
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
The Tribunal has the authority to condone delays in SARFAESI Act proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with emphasis on the necessity of timely action by mortgagors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the power of the Debts Recovery Tribunal to condone delay in filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, as clarified by the Supreme....
The presiding officer of the DRT cannot ignore statutory limitation periods prescribed in the SARFAESI Act despite alleged procedural irregularities.
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
