Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Visakhapatnam, dated 30.04.2024, passed in M.A.No.14 of 2023 in R.A.No.4 of 2024 in S.A.No.463 of 2021.

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:

The petitioner secured loans from respondent Nos.2 & 3 Banks. On the ground of defaults committed by the petitioners in repayment to the Banks, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”), were initiated against the petitioners. The Banks subsequently assigned the loan in favour of respondent No.1, which is an Asset Reconstruction Company. The petitioners preferred S.A.No.463 of 2021 challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.

The DRT, Visakhapatnam, by virtue of its order, dated 29.06.2022, disposed of the Securitisation Application along with connected I.As. During the pendency of S.A.No.463 of 2021, an affidavit came to be filed by respondent No.1 through its Sr. Vice President, wherein the following was stated:

“3. I submit that as the situation stands the Respondent No.1 has already submitted a detailed counter to I.A. 1979/2021 and an equally detailed reply to the above numbered Appeal with the latter being filed on 13/05/2022 itself. I submit that if the Hon'ble Tribunal's attention can be directed to Documents No. 31 and 32 filed along with the aforementioned reply filed by Respondent No.1, it can be seen that the Respondent No.1 has withdrawn the auction procedure on 10.03.2022 date making this S.A. infructuous effective immediately. I further submit that if the auction procedure itself has been terminated, then proceeding with the current S.A. will greatly damage the Respondent's time and resources. Therefore, it is highly imperative that the matter be advanced to a nearer date and then dismissed.”

This affidavit having been filed, the DRT, Visakhapatnam, on 29.06.2022, passed the following order:

“The Ld. Counsel for the respondent F.I Bank is submitted that the respondent F.I Bank is withdrawing SARFAESI proceedings against the applicant. Hence this SA along with all IAs are dismissed and disposed as the Respondent F.I. Bank is withdrawing SARFAESI proceedings.”

It is in that backdrop that a review petition came to be filed by respondent No.1 along with an application for condonation of a delay of 41 days. The application seeking condonation of delay was allowed by the Presiding Officer of the DRT by passing a non-speaking order and only on the ground of the „interest of justice‟.

In the review petition, the petitioner sought to project that there was no intention to withdraw the SARFAESI proceedings against the applicants/petitioners herein. It was argued that what was sought to be projected was the dismissal of the S.A. on the ground that the auction proceedings which were under challenge had been withdrawn by the review petitioner, and that the order dated 29.06.2022 had incorrectly recorded and was in fact a typographical error to suggest that the SARFAESI proceedings were being withdrawn.

The review petition accordingly came to be allowed and the order was modified to suggest that the S.A. was being dismissed on account of the withdrawal of the auction notice.

It is not out of place here to mention that after the dismissal of the S.A.No.463 of 2021, respondent No.1-Maximus ARC Limited, started fresh auction proceedings in regard to the secured asset, which yet again came to be challenged by the petitioners in S.A.No.321 of 2022.

In the aforementioned backdrop, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 30.04.2024, passed in M.A.No.14 of 2023, whereby the delay was condoned and the order dated 30.10.2024, passed in R.A.No.4 of 2024, whereby the review petition was allowed.

The principal ground taken is that the delay in filin