M/S MAHAGURU BIBHUTI NARAYAN AYURVEDIC CENTRE v. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VIJAY BISHNOI, SUMAN SHYAM
Outcome
Disposed of
With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
M/S MAHAGURU BIBHUTI NARAYAN AYURVEDIC CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, SRI DURLAV SARMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O- LATE GOPINATH SARMA, GANA PATH, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781022. VERSUS
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, SARB BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, SIGNATURE SQUARE, M.R.D. ROAD, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI- 781021. ( IFSC CODE- SBIN000221) 2:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER SARB BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, SIGNATURE SQUARE M.R.D. ROAD, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI- 781021. ( IFSC CODE- SBIN000221) 3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, DISPUR GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781006. ( IFSC CODE- [REDACTED]) For the Petitioner : Mr. P. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Nandi, Advocate : Ms. Dey, Advocate Page No.# 2/3 – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
24.04.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (in short, “DRT, Guwahati”) in I.A. No.196/2020 in EDRT Dy No.448/2020, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “SARFAESI Act, 2002”) has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 1(one) day in filing the said application. Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the DRT, Guwahati has grossly erred in not condoning the delay of 1(one) day in filing the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before it. It is contended that as per the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21/2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665/2021 in Suo Moto Writ petition (C) No.3/2020 [In RE: Congnizance for Extension of Limitation and Other Miscellaneous Applications], the delay of 1(one) day is liable to be condoned. It is contended that the limitation period for filing the application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was expired on 15.10.2020. However, the limitation period for filing any proceeding before any Court under any general or specific law, was extended by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from 15.03.2020 to
Operative part
28.02.2022. It is contended that the DRT, Guwahati, without taking note of the Page No.# 3/3 above fact has illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 treating it as barred by limitation. Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank is not in a position to dispute the fact that as per the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RE: Congnizance for Extension of Limitation (supra), the limitation for initiating any judicial proceedings before a Court under any general or specific law was extended up to 28.02.2022. Taking into consideration the above fact and the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RE: Congnizance for Extension of Limitation (supra), we are of the view that the DRT, Guwhati has erred in dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 while treating it as time barred. Hence, the order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the DRT, Guwahati in I.A. No.196/2020 is set aside. The DRT, Guwahati is directed to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on merits, in accordance with law, while treating it to be within the limitation period. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; SARFAESI Act, 2002 — s. 17.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.