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.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

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.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that under the statutory policy enacted by the Parliament in Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; there is a specific period of limitation for filing the S.A. before the DRT; once the period of limitation expires, the right to challenge coercive proceedings of loan recovery would wither away; there is no provision like Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 providing for condonation of delay; that being the position, the DRT was more than justified in negativing the challenge laid by the borrower on the ground of delay.

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 justification of order of the DRT, in variance with that of the DRAT.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

4.1. The outstanding debt is not in dispute. The subject property has been mortgaged in favour of the lender-Bank for securing the repayment of debt which is about Rs.60,00,000/- only, after adjusting the auction proceeds of the security property. The e-auction was scheduled vide notice dated 24.08.2018 in terms of Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The S.A. NDN 2519 of 2019 was filed by the Borrower on 17.12.2019 laying a challenge to the coercive proceedings. The period of limitation prescribed under section 17 of the Act is 45 days. Arithmetically, there was a long delay of 418 days in filing the said SA. Therefore, the same was rightly rejected by the DRT vide order dated 24.12.2019, since delay application in I.A. No.827 of 2019 itself was rejected by the very same order. This view gains support from the Karnataka High Court decision in Kailasam P. v. The Karnataka Bank Ltd. 2025 KHC 7606 (DB). It is relevant to mention here what the Apex Court observed in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. AIR 2001 SC 4010 :

“…it is not essential for the special or local law to, in terms, exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient if on a consideration of the language of its provisions relating to limitation, the intention to exclude can be necessarily implied. As has been said in Hukum Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra.

‘If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act.’

Thus, where the legislature prescibed a special limitation for the purpose of the appeal and the period of limitation of 60 days was to be computed after taking the aid of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitatio