Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
VIVEK RUSIA, BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, JJ.
Ramesh Pal And Others – Appellant
Versus
IDFC First Bank Limited And Others – Respondent
Misc. Petition No. 6432 of 2023 With Misc. Petition No. 4104 of 2023, Review Petition No. 453 of 2024
Decided On : 03-11-2025
(1) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 -- dead claim cannot be made alive under SARFAESI Act. [Para A-17]
(2) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 -- S. 17 -- Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 -- S. 24 -- applicability of S. 5 of Limitation Act -- there is no specific exclusion of Limitation Act under SARFAESI Act, and by virtue of S. 24 of RDB Act, provisions of Limitation Act apply to DRT for all applications to be filed. [Para A-17]
(3) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 2(j) -- prescribed period and computation of prescribed period -- prescribed period is different from computation of prescribed period -- prescribed period is fixed period provided under statute or in Limitation Act -- how such period is to be calculated or counted is also provided in Limitation Act under Part III. [Para A-19]
(4) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 29(2) -- applicability of Act -- Limitation Act applies to all laws unless expressly excluded. AIR 2016 SC 30 followed. [Para A-24]
(5) Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 -- Ss. 35, 36 and 37 -- Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- applicability of Limitation Act -- phrase “any other law for the time being in force” in S. 37 of SARFAESI Act -- means the law operating in same field -- S. 36 is already there for applicability of Limitation Act, therefore, Ss. 35 and 37 will not affect applicability of Limitation Act. [Para A-27]
(6) Limitation Act, 1963 -- S. 5 -- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 -- Ss. 17 and 36 -- Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 -- S. 24 -- applicability of S. 5 of Limitation Act -- borrower cannot be non-suited after 45 days if he fails to make an application u/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act -- there could be various reasons as enumerated u/ss. 12 to 21 of Limitation Act, or others which cannot be imagined at this stage (like covid-19 pandemic) for extension of prescribed period of limitation -- therefore, entire Limitation Act cannot be excluded for entertaining application u/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act -- borrower is barred from approaching civil Court u/s. 34 of SARFAESI Act and is also precluded from invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution owing to availability of alternative statutory remedy, therefore, DRT remains the only competent forum available to borrower for redressal of grievances and restoration of property -- proceeding before DRT, at instance of borrower or any person, shall be an original proceeding, hence, provisions of Ss. 4 to 24 (both inclusive) of Limitation Act shall apply -- delay in filing application/appeal/petition u/s. 17(1) of SARFAESI Act can be condoned by DRT by invoking provisions of Limitation Act. (2010) 8 SCC 110, (2004) 4 SCC 311, (2008) 1 SCC 125, (2008) 7 SCC 169, (2015) 7 SCC 58, AIR 2015 SC 2881, (2019) 7 SCC 108, (2020) 17 SCC 692, AIR 1969 SC 872, SEB (2010) 5 SCC 23, (2004) 4 SCC 252 and 2019 (1) 193 PLR 6 discussed. (2017) 16 SCC 137 distinguished. (2016) 4 SCC 47, (2017) 2 SCC 350, (2020) 13 SCC 618, (1998) 7 SCC 123, 2025 PHHC 125959-DB and 2025: MPHCIND:1869 referred to. [Paras A-30, A-31, C-1 & C-2]
¼1½ foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk çfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu rFkk çfrHkwfr fgr dk çorZu vf/kfu;e] 2002 & e`r nkos dks ljQslh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu thfor ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk ,&17½
¼2½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 5 & foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk çfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu rFkk çfrHkwfr fgr dk çorZu vf/kfu;e] 2002 & /kkjk 17 & _.k olwyh vkSj fnokfy;kiu vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 24 & ifjlhek vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 5 ykxw gksuk & ljQslh vf/kfu;e ds v/khu ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dk fofufnZ"V viotZu ugha rFkk _.k olwyh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 24 ds dkj.k] çLrqr fd, tkus okys leLr vkosnuksa ds fy, ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds mica/k _.k olwyh U;k;kfèkdj.k dks ykxw gksrs gSaA ¼iSjk ,&17½
¼3½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 2¼¥½ & fofgr vof/k rFkk fofgr vof/k dh lax.kuk & fofgr vof/k] fofgr vof/k dh lax.kuk ls fHkUu gS & fofgr vof/k dkuwu ds v/khu vFkok ifjlhek vf/kfu;e esa micaf/kr fu;r vof/k gS & bl vof/k dh lax.kuk vFkok fxurh dSls dh tkuk gS] ;g Hkh ifjlhek vf/kfu;e esa Hkkx 3 ds v/khu micaf/kr gSA ¼iSjk ,&19½
¼4½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 29¼2½ & vf/kfu;e ykxw gksuk & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e leLr fof/k;ksa dks ykxw gksrh gS] tc rd fd vfHkO;är% vioftZr ugha gksA ,vkbvkj 2016 ,llh 30 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk ,&24½
¼5½ foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk çfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu rFkk çfrHkwfr fgr dk çorZu vf/kfu;e] 2002 & /kkjk 35] 36 rFkk 37 & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 5 & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ykxw gksuk & ljQslh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 37 esa okD;ka'k ^^rRle; ço`Ùk fdlh vU; fof/k** & mlh {ks= esa çHkkoh fof/k vfHkçsr gS & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds fy, /kkjk 36 igys ls gh gS] vr% /kkjk 35 vkSj 37 ls ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dk ykxw gksuk çHkkfor ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk ,&27½
¼6½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 5 & foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk çfrHkwfrdj.k vkSj iquxZBu rFkk çfrHkwfr fgr dk çorZu vf/kfu;e] 2002 & /kkjk 17 rFkk 36 & _.k olwyh vkSj fnokfy;kiu vf/kfu;e] 1993 & /kkjk 24 & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh èkkjk 5 ykxw gksuk & m/kkj ysus okyk ljQslh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds v/khu vkosnu djus esa vlQy jgrk gS rks 45 fnol ds i'pkr~ mldk nkok [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ifjlhek dh fofgr vof/k cढ+kus ds fy, ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ls 21 ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjxf.kr fofHkUu dkj.k vFkok ,sls vU; dkj.k gks ldrs gSa ftudh dYiuk bl çØe ij ugha dh tk ldrh ¼tSls dksfoM&19 oSf'od egkekjh½ vr%- ljQslh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds v/khu vkosnu xzg.k djus ds fy, lewps ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dks vioftZr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & mèkkj ysus okyk ljQslh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 34 ds v/khu flfoy U;k;ky; tkus ls oftZr gS rFkk vkuqdfYid dkuwuh mipkj dh miyC/krk ds dkj.k og lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu mPp U;k;ky; dh fjV vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ysus ls Hkh çokfjr gS] vr% m/kkj ysus okys ds fy, f'kdk;rksa ds çfrrks"k.k vkSj laifÙk ds çR;korZu ds fy, _.k olwyh U;k;kf/kdj.k ,dek= l{ke U;k;ky; miyC/k cprk gS & _.k olwyh U;k;kf/kdj.k ds le{k dk;Zokgh] pkgs m/kkj ysus okys }kjk gks ;k vU; O;fä }kjk] ewy dk;Zokgh gksxh] vr% ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4 ls 24 ¼nksuksa lfgr½ ds mica/k ykxw gksaxs & ljQslh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17¼1½ ds v/khu vkosnu@vihy@;kfpdk çLrqr djus esa foyac _.k olwyh U;k;kf/kdj.k }kjk ifjlhek vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa dk vkJ; ysdj ekQ fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2010½ 8 ,llhlh 110] ¼2004½ 4 ,llhlh 311] ¼2008½ 1 ,llhlh 125] ¼2008½ 7 ,llhlh 169] ¼2015½ 7 ,llhlh 58] ,vkbvkj 2015 ,llh 2881] ¼2019½ 7 ,llhlh 108] ¼2020½ 17 ,llhlh 692] ,vkbvkj 1969 ,llh 872] ¼2010½ 5 ,llhlh 23] ¼2004½ 4 ,llhlh 252 rFkk 2019 ¼1½ 193 ih,yvkj 6 foosfprA ¼2017½ 16 ,llhlh 137 çHksfnrA ¼2016½ 4 ,llhlh 47] ¼2017½ 2 ,llhlh 350] ¼2020½ 13 ,llhlh 618] ¼1998½ 7 ,llhlh 123] 2025 ih,p,plh 125959 Mhch rFkk 2025 ¼,eih,plh vkb,uMh½ 1869 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk ,&30] ,&31] lh&1 ,oa lh&2½
ORDER :
Vivek Rusia, J.
1.Since the issues involved in these petitions are identical in nature, with the joint request of the parties, these M.P.s and R.P. are finally heard and being decided by this common order.
A. Miscellaneous Petition No.6432 of 2023
This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.09.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (in short 'DRT') in S.A. No.299/2013, whereby the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed for condonation of delay has been dismissed inter alia on the ground that its provision does not apply consequently the S.A. has also been dismissed.
B. Miscellaneous Petition No.4104 of 2023
This Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the DRT in S.A. No.567/2022, whereby the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as well as S.A., has been dismissed.
C. Review Petition No.453 of 2024
This Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 12.02.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.202 of 2024 (Smt. Kiran Turakhiya v/s Union Bank of India & Another), whereby the order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the DRT rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and S.A. No.955/2022 has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the learned DRT to decide the S.A. afresh by observing that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies with full force.
FACTS OF THE CASE
F-1.Common facts in all three petitions are to the effect that the Bank / Financial Institution advanced the loan to the borrower by mortgaging its immovable property by executing a mortgaged deed. When the borrower defaulted in repaying the loan/ EMI, the Bank / Financial Institution initiated proceedings by taking measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the SARFAESI Act'). By invoking the provisions of 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, the Bank / Financial Institution took possession (symbolic/physical) and thereafter, put the property into auction. After the finalisation of auction sale proceedings, the mortgaged property was sold to a third party.
F-2. Thereafter the borrowers approached the DRT by way of filing a Saucerisation Application / Petition under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act ( in short "SA"). Since there was a delay in filling the SA beyond the prescribed period of 45 days, hence they filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
F-3. The Bank / Financial Institution appeared and filed an objection in respect of the power of DRT under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay beyond 45 days. In all three matters, the learned DRT has held that the period of delay beyond 45 days cannot be condoned as the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the provisions of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and, as a result, dismissed all the S.As.
F-4. The SARFAESI Act provides the remedy of appeal to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal against the dismissal of S.A., even on the ground of limitation, but the petitioners have approached this Court by way of miscellaneous petitions under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India. After notice, the Bank / Financial Institution have filed a reply to support the order passed by the DRT.
F-5. Taking into consideration the reasons given in the impugned orders by the learned DRT, grounds raised by the petitioners and contentions of the respondents, the core issue emerges for our consideration is “whether the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and if answer is affirmative then whether Section 5 or 14 of the Limitation Act will apply to an applicat
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
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
