Mr. V. Jayasankar vs Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank

S. Ravi Kumar, Chairperson

This Appeal is preferred under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) challenging order of DRT-III, Chennai dated 16.5.2019 in SASR 7755/2019. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

Appellant herein filed above referred SASR 7755/2019 to set aside Sale Certificate dated 10.10.2018 registered as Document No.2865/2018 on the file of SRO, Joint-I, Kancheepuram and to direct respondent to deliver vacant possession of schedule mentioned property. Office of Tribunal below raised several objections and main objection is on the point of limitation. As application under Section 17 is not filed within 45 days from the date of taking measures, Office raised the said objection and that objection was heard by Ld. Presiding Officer and decided through impugned order dated 16.5.2019. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is preferred.

No representation for respondents 1 and 4. Advocates M/s M. Muruganantham & Co. filed vakalath today for R2 and R3 in place of advocates M/s Ganesan & Co.

Heard Ld. Counsels for appellant and respondents 2 & 3.

Advocate for appellant submitted that appellant has no knowledge about sale conducted since he has not received sale notice and all information was obtained by appellant through RTI Act. It is further submitted that on a perusal of information furnished under RTI Act, sale notice was addressed to Door No.40, Link Road, Panruti 607106, but, appellant is a resident of Door No.46, Link Road, Panruti, 607 106 and all earlier communications were addressed to Door No.46, Link Road, Panruti 607106 only. It is submitted that as appellant has no knowledge about sale and other details and application is filed immediately after receiving information from respondent bank through RTI Act, therefore, it is within limitation from the date of knowledge and prayed to set aside order of Tribunal below and give opportunity to appellant to question the sale.

Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that Tribunal below rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere.

Now, it may be relevant to examine Section 17 of SARFAESI Act to appreciate submissions of Ld. Counsel for appellant. Section 17 reads as follows.

“17(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Sectin 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter (may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed) to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the dte on which such measure had been taken”

A plain reading of above Section indicates that Securitization Application has to be filed within 45 days from the date of taking measures. It is not provided under said Section to calculate period of limitation from the date of knowledge. Period of 45 days is to be calculated from the date of taking steps, viz., Sale and application filed by appellant is not within 45 days and it is barred by time as stipulated under Section 17. Tribunal below considered this aspect and also considered decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein it is held that provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to DRTs. On a consideration of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and provisions of Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, Tribunal below rejected Securitization Application holding that it is not filed within time and Tribunal below has no power to extend the same.

According to advocate for appellant as appellant has no knowledge, his valuable rights to challenge steps cannot be taken away. But, I am not in agreement with the above submission of Ld. Counsel for appellant when provisions of Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is very clear that application has to be filed within 45 days from the date of taking measures, contention of appellant cannot be accepted.

Further, as seen from the copy of SARFAESI Application filed by appellant along with Memorandum of appeal, sale was held on 13.6.2018 and appellant challenged Sale Certificate dated 10.10.2018. Issuing Sale Certificate is not a measure and it is only a consequential step to the sale. A reading of Section 17 would reveal that measure under Section 13(4) is sale. Therefore, the relief as claimed is not in consonance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Further, as per Security Interest Enforcement Rules, it is mandatory to make a declaration about limitation in the application stating that it is filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. Appellant simply stated that application is filed within time, without making any clarification. It is not in dispute that sale is on 13.6.2018 and SA is filed on 24.10.2018. If 45 days is calculated, application is not within time and appellant did not explain how application is in time.

On a scrutiny of material, I am of the considered view that Tribunal below has rightly rejected Securitization Application since it is filed beyond period of limitation and I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of Tribunal below.

For the above reasons, Appeal RA (SA) 35/2020 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.