2026 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 339

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Shri G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
Y Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA (CORPORATION BANK) – Respondent
93/2025

For condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the earlier proceeding must relate to the same matter in issue and be prosecuted in good faith, and Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings before Tribunals under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

Headnote:

(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 - Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction - For availing benefit under Section 14, it must be established that proceedings in both forums relate to the same issue and are between the same parties; proceedings in the wrong forum were prosecuted in good faith and bona fide; and prosecution in wrong forum was due to defect of jurisdiction or other causes of a like nature. (Para 19)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 4 to 24 - Applicability to quasi-judicial bodies or Tribunals - Provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 (Sections 4 to 24) would only apply to suits and applications or appeals made under any law to 'courts' and not to those made before quasi-judicial bodies or Tribunals, unless such bodies or Tribunals are specifically empowered in that regard. (Para 21)

(C) SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 17 - Limitation period - Securitisation Application must be filed within 45 days from the date of measures taken under Section 13(4). (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant had availed loans from the bank in 2015 and 2016. The bank issued a Sale Notice on 13.10.2022. The appellant challenged the Sale Notice through multiple writ petitions and writ appeals before the High Court over a period of time, but failed to comply with conditional orders. Ultimately, in a writ appeal disposed on 05.07.2024, liberty was granted to approach the DRT. The appellant then filed a Securitisation Application (SA) on 12.08.2024 with a delay of 638 days, along with an application (IA 1759/2024) seeking condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The DRT-I, Bengaluru dismissed the delay condonation application and consequently the SA. The appeal before the DRAT challenged this dismissal.

Findings of Court:
The DRAT found that the appellant had not prosecuted the writ proceedings bona fide and in good faith, as he was a defaulter in complying with High Court orders. The writ petition filed for considering an OTS representation had no connection with the reliefs sought in the SA. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act do not apply to proceedings before Tribunals including DRT. The appellant failed to establish the conditions for availing benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The delay of 638 days was inordinate and not explained with valid reasons. The DRT's order dismissing the delay condonation application was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant was entitled to exclusion of time spent in prosecuting writ proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963; whether the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before the DRT; and whether sufficient cause was shown to condone the inordinate delay of 638 days in filing the Securitisation Application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be claimed unless the proceedings in the wrong forum relate to the same matter in issue and were prosecuted in good faith and bona fide. Since the appellant failed to comply with court orders and did not establish bona fides, and since the Limitation Act provisions do not apply to Tribunals, the delay condonation was rightly refused.

Result: The orders passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru in IA 1759/2024 in SA 404/2024 are confirmed and consequently, this Appeal in R.A (SA): 138/2025 is dismissed. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed. (Para 22)