M. Subramanian vs Authorised Officer, Citibank N.A. & Ors.

This appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 146/2021 in unregistered securitization application Dy. No.75/2021 on 30.04.2024 by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru.

IA 146/2021 was filed by the appellant to condone the delay of 11 days in filing the unregistered securitization application Dy.No.75/2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru, finding that the delay is not 11 days, but, 1824 days in filing the securitization application and that Limitation Act is not applicable in an application filed under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, dismissed the condone delay application and consequently unregistered securitization application Dy. No.75/2021 was also dismissed. As against the said order, this appeal is filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay was not 1824 days, as found by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru, but, there was a delay of only 11 days. He further submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka passed an order in WP 11052/2020 (GM-RES) on 04.12.2020 dismissing the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. There was also further direction that if the petitioner files an appeal before the DRT within four weeks from the date of disposal of the writ petition, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. When the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has given a liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRT, the limitation can be computed from the date of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. If that is taken into account, the delay at the best would be only 11 days. Thus, prays to set aside the order of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru.

Learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that even as per the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, the petitioner has not approached the DRT within four weeks from the date passing of the order and therefore, there was a delay.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

It is seen that the unregistered S.A.Dy.No. 75/2021 was filed to declare the impugned sale certificate registered as Document No. 13935/2015-16 before Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar (Banasawadi) Bengalare by the authorized officer, City Bank / first respondent in favour of the second respondent as null and void and to set aside the same and handing over physical possession of the suit property. It appears that the appellant has not challenged the measures taken by the first respondent starting from issuance of possession notice, orders passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, sale notice issued for the sale of the property and the sale held. Only the registration of the sale certificate is challenged that too, after nearly six years. It is settled proposition of Law that issuance of sale certificate and its registration are only an administrative and consequential action. Unless, the sale notice and the sale held in pursuance of the sale notice is challenged, issuance of sale certificate and its registration cannot be challenged. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, directed the appellant to approach the DRT within four weeks from the date of passing of the order on 04.12.2020, however, the SA Dy.NO. 75/2021 was filed only on 15.01.2021. Even, within the time given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, securitization application was not filed before the DRT. When there is efficacious remedy available before the DRT, the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengalur, and the Hon’ble High Court also opined that an alternative and efficacious remedy is available before the DRT and dismissed the writ petition. There was a direction to the DRT to consider if the securitization application is filed within four weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with law. Appellant has not approached the DRT within the time granted. Delay was not condoned by the Hon’ble High Court. The delay of 1824 days, at any such imagination, cannot be considered as genuine and reasonable entitling for its condonation. The conduct of the appellant in not challenging any of the measure like issuance of possession notice, order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, sale notice and sale held, shows that the appellant was not vigilant enough to seek the remedy. There is no justifiable reason for the huge delay in filing the securitization application. The learned Presiding Officer, DRT, -I, Karnataka at Bengaluru, found that the delay cannot be condoned on the ground that the delay is huge and the Tribunal has no powers to entertain the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. This Tribunal finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, -I, Karnataka at Bengaluru. Accordingly, the order of the learned Presiding Officer, DRT, -I, Karnataka at Bengaluru is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.