The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act regarding the condonation of delay.

1. Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated 30.12.2022 passed by the learned DRT, Visakhapatnam in MA No.53/2022 in S.A. (UN). Appellant preferred a Civil Revision Petition No. 308 of 2023 before Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and the State of Andhra Pradesh against the impugned order which was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court as not maintainable on 30.8.2023.

SLP No. 23220 of 2023 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court which was dismissed on 19.10.2023 with liberty to the Appellant to file an appeal before DRAT. Consequent thereto, appeal is filed by the Appellant. The Learned DRT dismissed the Securitisation Application filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (hereinafter referred to the ‘Act’) on the ground of limitation holding that the Application, under Section 17 of the Act, filed after more than 45 days is not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, Appellant preferred the appeal.

2. So far as the facts of the matter are concerned, Securitisation Application under Section 17 of the Act was filed by the Appellants challenging the e-auction sale conducted on 20.01.2022 in pursuance of the e-Auction Sale Notice dated 18.12.2021 with a delay of 173 days. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the Securitisation Application was also filed on certain grounds, regarding high handedness by the Secured Creditor.

3. An objection was raised by the Secured Creditor regarding maintainability of the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act . It was further contended by the Secured Creditor that sale has already been confirmed and sale certificate has been issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser and the Sale Certificate was registered and possession was also delivered.

4. Learned DRT held that the Application under Section 17 of the Act is filed in the nature of a suit which should have been filed within 45 days. Accordingly, the Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , was dismissed.

5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act , for condonation of delay in filing the Application under Section 17 of the Act is legally maintainable. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 45198 of 2017 dated 15.06.2018 in Porus Laboratory Private Limited -vs- Indian Bank and Sajida Begum -vs- State Bank of India, (2012) 6 ALT

130, (Division Bench).

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the issue of maintainability of the Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring an application under Section 17 of the Act, is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SLAP (C) No. 4754 of 2021 in the case of K.J. George and Another -vs- The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the scheme of the SARFAESI Act as well as the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (in short RDDB Act) is for expeditious disposal of the Application, under Section 17 filed under SARFAESI Act,