IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 23^rd day of March, 2026 PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON IA 41/2026 (Delay)

In AIR 2288/2025 (arising out of SA 56/2022 on the file of DRT-II, Bangalore)

Between Mr. Ramesh Naidu Goolla, S/o Late Mallappa, R/at No.402, 4^th Floor, S.V. Oaraduse Brundhavan Apartments, Arehally, Bengaluru 560 061.

…..Appellant And M/s GIC Housing Finance Ltd.

LEO Shopping Complex, 3^rd Floor, No.44 & 45, Residency Road Cross, Bengaluru 560 025.

…..Respondent Counsel for appellant : Mrs. D. Kavitha Counsel for Respondent : M/s V. Rameshvel

ORDER

Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant is present in VC. Ld. Counsel for the respondent financial institution is present.

This application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 1013 days in filing this appeal.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that petitioner/appellant filed SA No.56/202 on the file of DRT-II, Karnataka to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CJM, Bangalore in Crl.Misc.No.685/2020 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 24.2.2020, along with an application in IA No.378/2022 to condone the delay of 663 days in filing the SARFAESI Application.

Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Karnataka dismissed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stating that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act and consequently SA No.56/2022 was also dismissed. Against the said order, this appeal is filed with a delay of 1013 days with an application No.41/2026 to condone the delay.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1174/2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka challenging the proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. When queried as to whether in the said Writ petition, the above order of the Learned Presiding Officer was also challenged, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner replied that impugned order was not challenged in the Writ Petition. She further submitted that petitioner had been negotiating with the respondent financial institution for a settlement, therefore, the delay had occasioned. Under the said circumstances, she seeks condonation of delay of 1013 days in filing the appeal.

In reply to this submission, Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that delay is very huge and that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka passed a conditional order to pay 20% of the loan due as per its order dated 17.1.2023. This order was not complied by the petitioner till date. It is his further submission that delay of 1013 days cannot be condoned as the reason attributed is not sufficient.

In reply to this submission, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conditional order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karantaka was complied.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

From a perusal of records and the submissions made by Ld. Counsel appearing for parties, it is seen that SA 56/2022 was filed with a delay of 663 days. Learned Presiding Officer relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in re, P.K. Ramachadran Vs. State of Kerala reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556 and the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No.1797/2009 in W.P.(C) No.22192/2007 in re, K.P. Jayan Vs. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd and others and in re, the Authorised Officer, Indian Bank Vs. K.J. George held that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, cannot be entertained while filing SARFAESI application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

Despite the impugned order passed on 2.1.2023, this appeal is filed with a delay of 1013 days without giving any sufficient or acceptable reasons. The submission of the petitioner that petitioner had been negotiating with the respondent for a settlement and that resulted in delay in filing the appeal cannot be accepted. Not only that, the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act