Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Naresh Suresh Pawar, was a joint owner of an immovable property along with Jaiprakash Pahelwan and Nirmala Pahelwan. In the year 2000, Jaiprakash applied for a loan from the respondent-bank, Washim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., and the joint property was mortgaged as security. Jaiprakash died in 2001. The bank filed a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act before the Cooperative Court, seeking a declaration that the legal heirs of Jaiprakash were liable to pay the dues. The petitioner was not made a party to those proceedings. The Cooperative Court held that the bank was entitled to recover the outstanding loan amount from the legal heirs of Jaiprakash. Meanwhile, the bank issued notices under Section 13(2), (3), and (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to the legal heirs of Jaiprakash. The bank claimed that the petitioner was served with the notice under Section 13(4), but the petitioner disputed this. After taking steps under Section 13, the bank published an auction notice on 19.05.2005 in a local newspaper 'Pratideen', scheduling the auction. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) challenging the auction. However, the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay. The DRT, by judgment dated 18.03.2008, dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay. The petitioner then appealed to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Mumbai, which by judgment dated 16.09.2013, confirmed the DRT's order and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the DRT and DRAT had exercised their discretion judiciously and that there was no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the DRT and DRAT.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The DRT and DRAT refused to condone the delay, holding that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause. The High Court upheld the decisions, finding no error in the exercise of discretion. (Paras 2-4) B) Securitization - Appeal under Section 17 - Delay - Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - The petitioner, a joint owner of mortgaged property, challenged the auction sale conducted by the bank. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period. The courts below found the explanation for delay unsatisfactory. The High Court declined to interfere under Article 226. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal were justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgments of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 18.03.2008 and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 16.09.2013, which refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Section 17 of SARFAESI Act
- 2002
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
