IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU &

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF WRIT PETITION NO.23638 of 2023 BETWEEN :-

ATINDRA CONTAINER PVT. LTD (ERSTWHILE), ATINDRA FOOD STUFF LTD. (PRESENT CO.) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI JITENDRA SINGH GAUTAM, REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS : PLOT NO.118, NEW INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, MANDIDEEP, DISTRICT- RAISEN (M.P.)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI VISHAL BHATNAGAR & MS. LALA WALIA - ADVOCATES)

AND

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (ERSTWHILE ORIENTAL BANK) THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ADDRESS : PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, ZONAL OFFICE-

2ND FLOOR, PNB-HOUSE 1, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

ALSO AT :-

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (PRESENT BANK), ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE (ERSTWHILE), RR&L CLUSTER, IPC, M.P. NAGAR, ZONE-1, DISTRICT- BHOPAL (M.P.)

2. DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, CIVIL LINES, JABALPUR (M.P.)

3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, OFFICE AT : COLLECTORATE, DISTRICT-

RAISEN (M.P.)

4. LEO INDUSTRIES THROUGH PROPRIETOR ABHISHEK SARAN, HOUSE NO.22, B SHEHANSHA GARDEN, GOVINDPURA, DISTRICT-

BHOPAL (M.P.)

....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI KAPIL DUGGAL & SHRI AMAN JAIN – ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 AND SHRI SHEKHAR SHARMA –

ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 26.02.2024 Pronounced on : 22.03.2024 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sheel Nagu pronounced the following:

ORDER

1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily assails order dated 03.07.2023 vide Annexure P/1 passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (for short ‘DRT’) in S.A. No.526/2023 preferred by petitioner-borrower herein, whereby the said SA has been rejected as time barred for having been filed beyond the period of 45 days prescribed u/S 17(1) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity “SARFAESI Act”).

1.1 While passing the aforesaid impugned order, DRT has held that Limitation Act does not apply in proceedings u/S 17(1) of SARFAESI Act and therefore, benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act is not available to petitioner-borrower to be availed to said S.A. No.526/2023 from being dismissed as time barred.

2. Prolonged arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for rival parties. Various decisions of Apex Court as well as this Court have also been cited for and against the rival submissions. However, this Court need not enter into the prolixity of adjudication for reasons infra.

2.1 In a similar controversy, this very Bench vide M.P. No.917/2024 (Hareram Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd. and others vs. Bank of Baroda and others) decided on 28.02.2024, declined to consider the applicability of Limitation Act to an application u/S 17(1) of SARFAESI Act in the face of similar controversy pending adjudication before Apex Court in shape of SLP (C) No.4754/2021 (K.J. George and Another Vs. The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank and Others). This Court in the case of Hareram Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra) also declined to follow the earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Aniruddh Singh vs. Authorized Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. dated 03.01.2024 passed in M.P. No.5324/2023 by holding that Aniruddh Singh (supra) is denuded of its precedential value for having been decided per incuriam.

2.2 In Hareram Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court after taking note of the aforesaid held thus:

“3.1 No doubt, Coordinate Bench of this Court took the aforesaid view, but in another case, the said decision in Aniruddh Singh (supra) was doubted which is evident from order dated 19.02.2024 passed in W.P. No.23638/2023 [Atindra Contrainter Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile) Atindra Foodstuff Ltd. (Present Co.) Vs. Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile Oriental Bank of Commerce) and others] which is re