IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20243-2025 (O&M)

RESERVED ON: 02.08.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12.09.2025 M/S FAIR STYLE EMBROIDERY WORKS AND ANOTHER …….Petitioners Vs DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL III, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS ……..Respondents (2)

CWP-16232-2025 (O&M)

RESERVED ON: 02.08.2025 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:12.09.2025 HARSIMRAN SINGH AND ANOTHER …….Petitioners Vs.

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS.

…….Respondents.

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY, JUDGE Present:- Mr. Rohit Suri, Advocate (Arguing Counsel)

Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, Ms. Tanu Sidhu, Advocate, Mr. Karan Gaba, Advocate, and Mr. Kartiv Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate (Arguing Counsel), Ms. Deepika Mittal, Advocate, for the respondents-Bank.

* * * *

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Both these petitions, bearing CWP No. 20243 of 2025 and CWP 16232 of 2025, involve a common question of law, and, therefore, are decided by the instant common order.

2. In both these petitions, the question of law involved is as follows:-

I. Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to an application filed u/s 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act for brevity) ?

3. Both these petitions have been filed by petitioners-borrowers, who have defaulted in the repayment of loan, leading to initiation of SARFAESI proceedings, which were challenged by the petitioners-borrowers in the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal by way of S.A. No. 458 of 2024 titled as “Samriti Dang Vs. Indian Bank and others” and S.A. No. 456 of 2025 titled as “Harsimran Singh and another Vs. Indian Bank and others”, which came to be dismissed by orders dated 12.06.2025 and 19.05.2025, respectively, on the ground of having been filed beyond the period of limitation of 45 days prescribed u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act.

4. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, involved in the process of adjudication of the dispute involved, as follows:-

* Section 17 The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 “17. [Application against measures to recover secured debts]. (1)Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower]

[Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section. (1) of Section 17.]

[(1A) An application under sub-section (1) shall be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises;

(b) where the secured asset is located; or (c) the branch or any other office of a bank or financial institution is maintaining an account in which debt claimed is outstanding for the time being.]

[(2) The Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

(3) If, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, after