The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.

ORDER

1. This appeal is filed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act challenging the order dated 8.3.2022 passed in IA 1858/2016 in SA (NDN) 1442/2021 on the file of DRT, Coimbatore.

2. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that SA (NDN) 1442/2021 (SASR No.5725/2016 on the file of DRT, Madurai) was filed challenging the Auction Sale Notice dated 25.9.2012. Since there was a delay in filing the application, appellant also filed IA 1858/2016 to condone the delay of 1372 days in filing the SARFAESI Application. It is further submitted that DRT below after noting the objections of 1^st respondent bank that property was already sold in auction way back on 29.10.2012 and the entire process under the SARFAESI Act having been completed, nothing survives in the application, dismissed the IA without assigning any reasons. It is further submitted that application filed for condonation of delay in filing SA was not considered by adverting to the reasons stated for the delay and this finding led to dismissal of the IA.

3. Ld. Counsel for appellant further submitted that appellant is the guarantor for the loan borrowed by his wife Mrs. M. Elangodi and appellant filed a Writ Petition MD No.16830/2012 challenging the sale notice and sale certificate issued in favour of respondents 2 to 5 therein. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench dismissed the WP giving liberty to the appellant to approach appropriate forum of law for appropriate remedy. Thereafter, appellant filed application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act along with IA 1858/2016 for condoning the delay of 1372 days in filing the SARAESI Application.

4. It is the further submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant that Section 5 of Limitation Act is made applicable to the proceedings before DRT, therefore, dismissal of IA filed for condonation of delay without assigning reasons is improper, therefore, this Appeal is filed to set aside the order dated 8.3.2022 passed in IA 1858/2016 in SA (NDN) No.1442/2021.

5. Ld. Counsel for appellant relied on the following judgments in support of his submissions.

a) Hon’ble High Court of Punjab in re Surinder Mahajan Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others reported in (2017) ibclaw.in 151 HC

b) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in WP No.34860/2019 in re P.K. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Central Bank of India and three others.

c) Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradsh in MP No.5324/2023 in re Aniruddh Singh Vs. Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd.

d) Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in WP(C) No.7135/2023 in re M/s Baruah C.C. Block Industry rep. by is Proprietor, Smt. Anju Barua & another Vs. State Bank of India and two others

6. In reply, Ld. Counsel for first respondent bank opposed this petition on the ground that Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to proceedings before DRT. Ld. Counsel further submitted that when a Co-ordinate Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Madras decided the issue of law, subsequent Bench of same strength cannot take a different view than that of in the matter that what has been decided by the earlier Bench and in case of difference in opinion, then, the matter has to be referred to a larger Bench by the subsequent Bench.

7. In support of his contention, Ld. Counsel for R1 Bank relied on the following judgments.

a) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in re, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (6) CTC 493.

b) Hon’ble High Court of Madras in re Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Authorised Officer/Chief Manager , Indian Bank, Kanchipuram & others reported in MANU/TN/5046/2019

8. No representation for R3.

9. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

10. From the facts elicited above, the points that arise for consideration of this Tribunal are as follo