THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN IA NO. 2576/2024 FILED IN SA NO. 597/2024 DATED 28.03.2025 PASSED BY THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1 VIDE ANNEXURE -A.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

"PRAYER WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to:

a) ISSUE A writ of appropriate nature to set aside the order in IA.No.2576/2024, filed in SA.No.597/2024, dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1 vide Annexure-A; and

b) PASS such other orders as may be deemed appropriate in the ends of justice and equity."

It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had filed SA.No.597/2024 on 19.11.2024 seeking to quash/set aside the sale notice dated 17.08.2024 by declaring it as illegal and void ab initio on the ground that measures initiated by respondent No.1 is in violation of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The petitioner also filed I.A.No.2576/2024 on 19.11.2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 24 of the Recovery Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 praying to condone the delay of 49 days in filing SA.No.597/2024 under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. SA.No.597/2024 came to be dismissed on 28.03.2025 on the ground that SA is barred by limitation and is not maintainable before the Tribunal.

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that "whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal has the power to condone the delay beyond 45 days in filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act" is a question which is directly pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C).No.4754/2021 arising from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 02.11.2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon being satisfied of the importance of the issue had issued notice, thereby seizing itself of the matter. It is submitted that the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Aniruddh Singh Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2024 SCC Online MP 205, while interpreting provisions of Section 29(2) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act had held that the action taken under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, the SARFAESI Act does not expressly exclude the application of the provisions from Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act including Section 5.

Learned Senior counsel had relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Surinder Mahajan Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, 2013 SCC Online P&H 7088 and submits that it is held that in the absence of any provision under the Act excluding the applicability of the Limitation Act to the proceedings before the DRT under Section 17 would not be proper. Learned Senior counsel had also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana in case of Porus Laboratory Private Limited Vs. Indian Bank, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 161, wherein relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India and others, (2016) 1 SCC 444, it is held that the DRT may exercise similar powers as exercised by the DRAT and may entertain application filed beyond the prescribed period. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court in case of Ponnusamy Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal, 2009-1-L.W.954, wherein it is held that the SARFAESI Act does not exclude the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act and remedy under Section 17(1) is in respect of right of redemption and to say Section 5 of the Limitat