The SARFAESI Act allows for the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, enabling the Debt Recovery Tribunal to condone delays in filing appeals.

ORDER

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

As against the steps taken by the respondent under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act , the revision petitioner herein has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act . An application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act , however, was not filed within the stipulated time of 45 days and hence, the appellant herein had also taken out an application for condonation of delay in NDN.No.647 of 2024 in SA. SR. No.5299 of 2024, which came to be dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. This revision is filed against the same.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act .

3. However, the issue is not against any final order passed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act , but against the order passed in condonation of delay application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Whether of the Limitation Act is applicable to the SARFAESI Act is a crucial point.

4. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of P. K. Radhakrishnan and others vs. the Central Bank of India , Asset Recovery Branch and others reported in MANU/TN/0827/2020 has dealt with a writ petition which had arisen challenging the debt recovery appellate tribunals power to condone the delay beyond 45 days in the light of the self-contained provision under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act . The relevant portion of the aforesaid case applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case is extracted as follows:

“(13)In the decision reported in MANU/SC/0835/2015 : 2016 [1] SCC 444 [ Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal V. Bank of India and Others ], the question that arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is to the power of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18[2] of the SARFAESI Act to condone the delay beyond prescribed period of limitation and held as follows:-

''A bare perusal of Section 18[2] of the SARFAESI Act makes it clear that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has to dispose of an appeal in accordance with the provisions of the RDDB Act. In this respect, the provisions of the RDDB Act stand incorporated in the SARFAESI Act for disposal of an appeal. Once it is so, there is no reason as to why the SARFAESI Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal beyond the prescribed period even on being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing such appeal within that period. Even if power of condonation of delay by virtue of Section 29[2] of the Limitation Act were held not to be applicable, the proviso to section 20[3] of the RDDB Act is applicable by virtue of Section 18[2] of the SARFAESI Act . This interpretation is clearly borne out from the provisions of two statutes and also advances the cause of justice. Unless the scheme of the statute expressly excludes the power of condonation, there is no reason to deny such power to an Appellate Tribunal when the statutory scheme so warrants. Thus, the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal before it by virtue of Section 18[2] of the SARFAESI Act and the proviso to Section 20[3] of the RDDB Act. Further, the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act being complementary to each other, support this view.

The period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is 30 days as against 45 days under section 20 of the RDDB Act. To this extent, legislative intent may be deliberate. However, the absence of an express provision for condonation, when Section 18[2] expressly adopts and incorporates the provisions of the RDDB Act which contains provision for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal, cannot be read as excluding the power of condonation. The proviso to Section 20[3] which provides for con