The provisions of section 5 or 14 of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply to the SRFAESI Act, and consultation with the borrower for fixing the reserve price is not required under Rule 8 (5) of the Act.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants is heard on the question of admission of the Appeal.

This is an Appeal preferred by the Appellants challenging the judgment passed by the DRT on 21st October, 2011 in Securitisation Application No. 79/2010, which was dismissed by the DRT. Before the DRT the Appellants challenged the actions so taken by the Respondent-Bank to auction the prop#31;erty by taking recourse to section 13 (4) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be called as 'Act').

2. The facts leading to the present case are that the Appellants had taken the loan facility from the Respondent-Bank. Since there was default in repay#31;ment of the same as per the agreement, therefore, the account was declared as NPA. A notice under section 13 (2) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 6th November, 2009 and the same was re#31;ceived by the Respondent No. 3. There#31;after, the possession notice was issued on 11th January, 2010 and the same was published in the newspaper. Thereafter, the possession was taken and the pro#31;ceeding to auction the property was ini#31;tiated. The auction was scheduled for 7th February, 2010 as per the notice pub#31;lished in the newspaper, which was subsequently rescheduled on 10th March, 2010. The property was auctioned and the sale certificate was issued on 7th April, 2010.

3. The Appellants filed a writ peti#31;tion before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur on 13th April, 2010, which was registered as W.P. No. 4899/2010. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 21st April, 2010. The said petition as dismissed on the ground that there was an alternative remedy available to the Appellants to file application under sec#31;tion 17 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 and the Petitioner was set at liberty to avail the said remedy and the petition was dis#31;missed in limine. Thereafter, the Appel#31;lants filed a writ Appeal against the or#31;der passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the said High Court, which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 370/2010. The said writ Appeal was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated 20th May, 2010.

4. Thereafter, the Appellants pre#31;ferred the Securitisation Application under section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 on 3rd June, 2010 before the DRT. In the same, the question with regard to the improper auction of the property and non-issuance of any notice under section 13 (2) were agitated. It was also agitated that the notice of possession was not served on them. It was also submitted inter-alia that the reserve price of the property was not properly fixed.

5. The Tribunal below held that the Securitisation Application preferred by the Appellants was itself barred by time and it has no power to condone the delay. The Tribunal further held that there was no illegality in auctioning the property. The Tribunal further held that the Appellants are guilty of not approaching the forum with clean hands by alleging that no notice under section 13 (2) of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 was re#31;ceived and also with regard to the fact in relation to the possession notice, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the notice was received and was also pub#31;lished in the newspaper. The Tribunal further held that for the purpose of fixation of the reserve price, it was not necessary to consult the borrower. Since notice was published properly in the newspaper, therefore, the action so taken is valid.

6. Section 17 of the SRFAESI Act, 2002 provides for filing of Securitisation Application within 45 days from the date, the measures are to be taken. In the present case, the Securitisation Ap#31;plication was preferred on 3rd June, 2010.

7. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that in the present case, the Appellants are entitled to in#31;voke the benefit of section 14 of the In#31;dian Limitation Act, 1963, which pre#31;scribes th