The Tribunal has the authority to condone delays in filing Securitization Applications beyond the statutory period if adequately explained, ensuring access to statutory remedies.

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ :

The petitioner preferred a Securitization Application accompanied by an application for condonation of delay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The Securitization Application was filed challenging the notice, dated 09.01.2024, issued by the Advocate Commissioner, who had been appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, in regard to the secured asset with the Bank of Maharastra – respondent No.1 herein.

2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) was 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken. The Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, had passed an order in Crl. M.P. No.384 of 2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the house, which was a secured asset, on 02.03.2022.

Against the said order, the Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court, which petition came to be dismissed by virtue of order, dated 28.06.2023, whereafter the Securitization Application was filed on 23.02.2024. The Debts Recovery Tribunal noted that the order impugned, which was challenged in the Securitization Application, was within the knowledge of the petitioner, despite which there was a delay of more than seven months in filing the Securitization Application. In those circumstances, holding that the Securitization Application is time barred and that the petitioner had no right to get the delay condoned, the Securitization Application was dismissed.

3. Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that the dismissal of the Securitization Application on the ground of limitation, was not warranted in law inasmuch as issuance of a notice by the Advocate Commissioner on 09.01.2024 was a subsequent cause of action, which could not be connected with the dismissal of the writ petition in which the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, dated 02.03.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that the Tribunal committed an error in law in holding that the Tribunal had no right to condone the delay and therefore by holding so, it had ignored the settled legal position that if delay was sufficiently explained, the same could be condoned even beyond the period of 45 days prescribed under Section 17 of the Act.

5. The relevant paragraphs of the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which is impugned, are reproduced hereunder:

“5. As per Sec. 17 the filing of appeal limitation period is 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken. In the present case Ld. CMM, Vijayawada has passed order in Crl.MP No. 384 of 2022 in C.F.No. 837/2022 appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the house bearing D.No. 22-52 in L.P.No. 1956/16, Gollapudi Panchayath, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

6. After perusal of the order of Ld. CJM, I find that Hon'ble CJM has passed order under Sec. 13(4) on 02.03.2022 and the applicant has filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. After hearing the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court have dismissed the Writ Petition on 20.06.2023. After that the applicant has filed the present SA on 23.02.2024.

7. Accordingly the applicant has knowledge about the order of Ld. CJM against which the applicant has filed Writ petition. Hence this SA is time barred under Sec. 17 and this Tribunal has no right to condone the delay.

In the present case after the order of Hon’ble High Court also the applicant has also delayed about more than 07 months.”

6. The order certainly is not a very happily worded order. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the order suggest as if the Debts Recovery Tribunal i