The High Court's stay of the DRAT's order was found unjustified as the principles of review jurisdiction were not met.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by Bank of Baroda is against an Interlocutory Order of stay passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench pending disposal of a Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed by the Respondent Company against the order in appeal by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT'.) dated 02.12.2016. By this order the challenge laid to the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) was dismissed on the ground of limitation. While issuing notice, this Court had stayed the impugned interim order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench and the order of stay continues to hold the field.

3. The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows. The first Respondent Company availed certain credit facilities for which the Directors of the Company gave personal guarantees along with an equitable mortgage of immovable property. As the Company defaulted in repayment of the loan, the Bank issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the Act demanding an amount of Rs. 2,34,15,456/- from the Company and its Directors. For non-payment, a notice under (4) of the Act demanding actual physical possession was also issued. It is the case of the Bank that the actual physical possession of the secured asset was obtained by its authorized officers on 30.08.2010.

4. The Company along with one of its Directors filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 56410/2010 challenging the issuance of the notices under Sections 13 (2) and 13(4) of the Act and sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Bank from taking any coercive action for the recovery of the amount. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the only direction that the entire dues will be paid back in four equal installments, and if the Company fails to pay up the dues within the time prescribed, the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

5. As the Company and its Directors failed to comply with the schedule as determined by the High Court, the Bank proceeded further and issued a sale proclamation which culminated in Respondent No. 7 being declared the successful bidder. A sale certificate was also issued in his favour.

6. The present proceedings commence with a challenge to the above referred sale certificate in an application under Section 17 of the Act by the Respondent Company and the Directors. It is important to mention at this stage that, the application under was filed by the Company, its three Directors, being Sri Vinod Kumar, Smt. Gayatri Devi and Sri Rameshwar Prasad. The other Director Sri Rakesh Sharma, who expired on 18.09.2012 was represented by his legal representatives.

7. After hearing the Company, its Directors and the legal representatives of the deceased Director, the DRT dismissed the Section 17 application on the ground that it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation of 45 days. According to (1), the period of 45 days is mandated to commence from the date on which a measure under Section 13 (4) has been adopted, which in the facts of the present case is the date when the secured asset is sold in favour of Respondent No.7.

8. The above referred order was challenged in review. The DRT by its order dated 08.08.2016 allowed the review on the ground that Sri Rakesh Sharma had expired before the auction had taken place and that his legal representatives were not issued notice. It is rather strange that the DRT not only entertained the Review Petition, but has allowed the same on the aforesaid ground.

9. The o