The SARFAESI application challenging the order under Section 14 is maintainable, while the challenge to the notice under Section 13(4) is time-barred.

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record accordingly.

2. Instant appeal arises against the order dated 09/07/2024 passed by the DRT, Cuttack in IA No.879/2024 in NDN No.502/2024 and thereby DRT, Cuttack dismissed the IA No.879/2024 for condonation of delay in filing SARFAESI application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

3. So far as facts of the matter is concerned, SARFESI application under Section 17 was filed by the appellant on 05/06/2024 for relief to quash the notices under Section 13(4)of the Act and consequent order dated 18/05/2024 and 21/05/2024 passed under Section 14 of the Act. Along with the SA petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed with a payer to condone the delay in preferring the SA.

4. Opposition was filed by the Respondent Bank stating that no ground for condonation of delay for quashing the notice under Section 13(4) dated 04/02/2022 is made out. Sale was conducted and confirmed and sale certificate was issued on 21.12.2023. It has been further contended that the appellant sought for relief for quashing of notice under Section 13(4) along with the orders passed under Section 14 of the Act.

5. Another plea was raised about the declaration made in the SA to the effect that the appellants have also filed civil suits which fact has not been disclosed in the SA.

6. Learned DRT after considering the submissions recorded the finding that SARFAESI application under Section 17 of the Act is barred by limitation as no sufficient cause for condonation of delay is assigned. Accordingly dismissed the application under Section 5 and consequently SA was also dismissed.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant at the very outset submits that relief as far as question of possession notice under Section 13(4) is concerned it was time barred and application for condonation of delay was filed. However, it is further submitted that order Under Section 14 of the Act was passed on 18/05/2024 while SA was filed on 05/06/024 which was well within time as filed within 45 days. It is further submitted that factum of civil proceeding was not disclosed as the further proceedings were filed subsequent to impugned order dated 09/07/2024.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that SARFAESI application under Section 17 is time barred. The appellants further challenged the notice under Section 13(4) with consequential relief for setting aside Section 14 order. It is further submitted that notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) was duly served and the appellants did not chose to challenge the same. Thereafter secured creditor proceeded under SARFAESI Act for auction in accordance with law. Auction was conducted, bid amount was deposited by the auction purchaser and the sale certificate was also issued on 21/12/2023. Accordingly, now the appellant cannot challenge either the possession notice under Section 13(4) or order under Section 14 of the Act. It is further submitted that the declaration made by the appellants are false and wrong.

9. As far as relief clause of SARFAESI application under Section 17 is concerned relief of quashing notice under Section 13(4) along with quashing of order passed under Section 14 of the Act dated 19/05/2024 was claimed. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay in filing the SA. As far as challenge to notice under Section 13(4) of the Act is concerned it was duly served upon the appellant but they did not chose to challenge the same. Secured creditor thereafter proceeded to recover their dues in accordance with SARFAESI Act and conducted auction sale and recovered the amount and also issued sale certificate.

10. As far as validity of sale certificate is concerned that cannot be looked into at this stage. But one fact is borne from the record that order under Section 14 of the Act was passed on 18/05/2024 which was also under challenge in the SA. This order can be challenged by the appellants