CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION IN DRT CHANDIGARH

CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION IN DRT CHANDIGARH

by

Last Updated on September 5, 2024 by Satish Mishra

Post covers CONDONATION OF DELAY PETITION IN DRT CHANDIGARH. However, the court’s decision to condone a delay is discretionary and can be based on a number of factors, including negligence or failure to exercise due diligence.

A Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has the power to condone a delay in filing a petition by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This allows the DRT to exercise its jurisdiction beyond the 45-day period prescribed by Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

This post is a judgment digest on condonation of delay petition in drt chandigarh  for the states of punjab haryana jammu & Kashmir himachal pradesh where the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 1963 shall not be applicable before the DRT and the petition stands dismissed.

Condonation of Delay DRT Chandigarh Ruling

Here is the judgment :

Also read- Whether DRT or High Court Chandigarh for Payment Default (NPA)

Dr. Vikram Mehra and Anoher vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal I

7th January 2020

High Court of Punjab and Haryana

Petitioners- Dr. Vikram Mehra and Another

Respondents- Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh and Others

aggrieved against the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by DRT I, the petitioners seek condonation of delay of 285 days in filing the Securitization application.

Also Read- Can Banks attach Agricultural Land DRT Chandigarh Bench?

Claims of the Petitioner:

  1. That the petitioners are the joint owners of an immoveable property measuring 3 kanal 18 marla situated at Macleod Road, Amritsar.
  2. That the petitioners came to know that some part of the property had been mortgaged by respondent no.4 with respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 was unable to repay the loan.
  3. That the property was under sale by way of Court Auction.
  4. That recovery suit was allowed by DRT and the Recovery Officer-II, DRT, Chandigarh has passed the order of the sale of the property in question.

Also Read- DRT Chandigarh Procedure

Timeline of events:

  1. The petitioners made an application for setting aside the notice of sale but it was dismissed on 31.10.2002.
  2. On challenging the order by way of appeal before DRT I, it got dismissed on account of non appearance on 21.03.2003.
  3. However while again the application was filed and allowed as well, the sale of the property was the sale of the property in dispute was confirmed by the Recovery Officer on 04.04.2003 and the sale certificate was issued on 07.04.2003.
  4. Therefore the petitioners withdrew their appeal and challenged the order passed by the Recovery Officer.
  5. The order got dismissed by the DRT I on 21.01.2004 as it has no jurisdiction regarding the matter.
  6. Thereafter the petitioners filed an appeal against the orders dated 4.4.2003 and 7.4.2003 before the DRT, Chandigarh along with an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963  for condonation of delay of 285 days.
  7. The said appeal was dismissed as the DRT I had no jurisdiction to consider the application filed under Section 5of the Act of 1963.

Also Read- Drt and Tenancy Rights: Where the Dispute Lies?

Arguments by the Counsel on behalf of the petitioner:

  • Even if the application under Section 5of the Act of 1963 was not maintainable and the period prescribed for filing of the appeal could not have been extended by assigning the sufficient cause the petitioners could have been given the advantage of Section 14 of the Act of 1963.

Also Read- Debt Recovery Under Ibc: a Speedy Remedy for Creditors

Arguments by the Counsel on behalf of the respondent:

  • Firstly the appeal was not filed immediately before the DRT after it was returned on 21.1.2004 as the same was filed before the DRT on 17.2.2004.
  • Secondly, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court to contend that even Section 14of the Act of 1963 shall not apply to the DRT.

Issues framed:

  1. Whether Section 14 of the Act of 1963 is independent from Section 5 of the Act of 1963 and can be applied for seeking condonation of delay in case the litigation had been bonafidely seeking his remedy before the Court having no jurisdiction?

Also Read- NCLT DRT Chandigarh

Judgments Quoted:

  1. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Doha Bank QSC and another
  2. State of Goa Vs. M/s Western Builders” 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475.
  3. Rukmani Ganesan Vs. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and others” (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 108
  4. The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur
  5. P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants,
  6. CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants was not cited. CST, U.P. vs. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants
  7. Joshi and others. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others

 

Findings of the Court:

Also Read- Debt Recovery Tribunal DRT

State of Goa vs. M/s Western Builders” 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475 discussed in detail:

  1. The question was as to whether Section 14 of the Act of 1963 would be applicable in the proceedings arising from the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
  2. In the said case, on account of a dispute between the parties the matter was referred to the Sole Arbitrator, who rendered his award against the State of Goa which was taken to the Civil Court for making the award as a rule of the Court.
  3. An objection was raised that after coming into force of the Act of 1996, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction for making the award as a rule of the Court because as per the Act of 1996, the award can be executed as a decree.
  4.  The State of Goa filed a petition before the District Judge with an application filed under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Act of 1963 for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator in terms of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the time spent in the proceedings before the Court having no jurisdiction may be excluded.
  5. The said application was rejected on the ground that Section 14 of the Act of 1963 is not applicable.
  6. . The matter was then taken to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State of Goa raising an issue as to whether the provision of Section 14of the Act of 1963 is applicable to the Act of 1996 or not.
  7.  It was held by the Supreme Court that Section 14 of the Act of 1963 is applicable to the Act of 1996.

Also Read- WRITS IN PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

Ganesan vs. Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board and others” (2019) 7 Supreme Court Cases 108 discussed in detail:

  1. An application was filed by Ganesan under Section 63 of the T.N. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 claiming his ambalam right.
  2. The Joint Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board his order dated 3.12.2010, held that Ganesan was entitled for ambalam right and to receive first respect as an ambalam in the village.
  3. Writ petitions filed before the High Court challenging the order dated 31.12.2010 were dismissed.
  4. The 3rd respondent therein filed an appeal under Section 69of the Act of 1959 against the order dated 31.12.2010.
  5. Was disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 7.3.2013 with a direction to the Commissioner to dispose of the appeal within a prescribed time.
  6. The 3rd respondent therein filed the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 266 days alleging that he could not file the appeal in time because he was unwell.
  7. The application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal was contested by Ganesan on the ground that the Act of 1963 is not applicable.
  8. The delay was condoned by the Commissioner against which a writ petition was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by the High Court holding that the Act of 1959 does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963.

Also Read- Best Top Expert Lawyer Advocate

Thus, the provision of Section 14 of the Act of 1963 shall not be applicable before the DRT and hence, we do not find any merit in the present petition for the purpose of interference. The petition stands dismissed.

Also Read- Free Legal Advice

Conclusion

The petitioners filed a petition seeking condonation of delay of 285 days on discovering that the property which was jointly owned by them (petitioners) was being auctioned by the concerned authority, when the respondents were unable to repay the loan on its mortgage. The said petition was dismissed.

Also Read- PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

for case specific advice, please contact best top expert drt chandigarh 1 drt chandigarh 2 drt chandigarh 3 lawyers advocate for the states of punjab and haryana, himachal pradesh, haryana, jammu & Kashmir and chandigarh (UT).

This post is written by rashika garg.

more on 99888-17966.

Call Us