AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Learned Counsel for both sides are present.
This appeal is filed against order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka in SA No. 284/2025 on 28.11.2025.
It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that the aforesaid Securitization Application has been filed by the Respondents challenging the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the Learned 11 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City in Cr. Misc. No.50364/2021 dated 2.8.2022. He further submitted that though the order was passed on 2.8.2022, the Securitization Application was filed with a delay of 978 days. Instead of approaching the DRT challenging the said order, the Respondent filed WP 4331/2023 on 20.2.2023 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. That writ petition was disposed of on 24.4.2025, giving liberty to the Respondent to approach the Tribunal within 4 weeks from the date of passing the order. He further submitted that even the writ petition was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation and was filed beyond the period of limitation. However, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in the first part of para 5 of the order had only given concession for exempting the period spent before the writ court for the purposes of considering limitation. However, in the second part, it was directed that the DRT shall not insist on limitation, if the Petitioner approached the DRT within 4 weeks. There are two parts of the orders. Without even filing an application to condone the delay, this Securitization Application was filed. In the said circumstances, it is submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal has to be set aside.
In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondents submitted that only after considering all the relevant factors, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru granted 4 weeks time for filing the Securitization Application and the delay was rightly condoned by the DRT. Now, the Securitization Application has been heard in full and pending for orders.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
There is no doubt that the Securitization Application has been filed with a huge delay. The writ petition has also been filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru with a huge delay. However, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru has made the following observation in para 5 of the order.
“The period spent in this Court right from filing of the petition, till the petitioners would approach the DRT, be excluded for the purpose of consideration of limitation, if need so arises.”
Immediately thereafter, it was held that -
“The Debt Recovery Tribunal shall not insist on limitation, if the petitioners approach the DRT, within four weeks from today.”
By the second part, the DRT was mandated to entertain the Securitization Application if it is filed within 4 weeks from the date of the order. It appears that this order is not challenged by the Appellant Bank before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. There is no doubt that the Securitization Application has been filed within 4 weeks time granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. Now, the Securitization Application is fully heard and reserved for orders.
In the said circumstances, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru.
In this view of the matter, appeal MA (SA) No. 9/2026 is dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.