2012 (9) TMI 1192 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of DRAT to condone delay in filing an appeal u/s 18 of SARFAESI Act.
2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under SARFAESI Act.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of DRAT to condone delay in filing an appeal u/s 18 of SARFAESI Act:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.05.2012 by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Hyderabad's order. The DRAT relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Seth Banshidhar Kedia Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd v. State Bank Of India (AIR 2011 MP 205), holding that u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the appellate tribunal has no power to condone the delay in the presentation of the appeal.

2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under SARFAESI Act:
The court examined the legislative framework of the SARFAESI Act, the DRT Act, and the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides a forum for adjudication of claims before the DRT, and Section 18 provides a right to appeal to DRAT. The DRT and DRAT exercise powers similar to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Limitation Act is expressly applicable u/s 24 of the DRT Act. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act states that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded.

The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in MUKRI GOPALAN v. CHEPPILAT PUTHANPURAYIL ABOOBACKER, which held that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies to special or local laws, making Sections 4 to 24, including Section 5, applicable unless expressly excluded. The court found no express exclusion of the Limitation Act under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, is applicable to proceedings under Sections 17 and 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and DRAT.

The court concluded that the DRAT's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay for want of jurisdiction is incorrect and set it aside. The DRAT, Chennai, was directed to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within two months.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the DRAT was directed to reconsider the application for condonation of delay. The miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of as infructuous, with no order as to costs.