Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6209 of 2019 Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Khateria Respondent :- Authorized Officer , State Bank Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh for respondent No.1.
With consent of the parties, the matter is disposed of at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent No.2.
The petitioner is an auction purchaser.
Sale certificate is dated 05.05.2015. It appears that the borrower respondent No.2 approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad sometime in the month of April 2015. There was some delay in filing the S.A., the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected his S.A. on the ground of limitation.
Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed.
The respondent No.2 filed a Writ-C No.32009 of 2018, he challenged the appellate order as well as the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
By order dated 01.10.2018, the matter was relegated back to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad to decide the delay condonation application sympathetically.
However, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by order dated 13.12.2018 allowed the appeal and the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 11.01.2016, rejecting the S.A. by the respondent No.2 was also set aside. It was further directed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter afresh.
The contention of Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal should have not set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as there was delay in filing the S.A. by the respondent No.2 and further the S.A. was dated 11.02.2015 while the affidavit supporting the S.A. was sworn on 11th April, 2015 and the same was filed in July, 2015.
He further contended that the Debts Recovery Tribunal had recorded categorical finding regarding the delay in filing the S.A.
Ms. Archana Singh counsel for the Bank has also submitted that the Appellate Tribunal should not have set aside the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal rejecting the S.A. of the respondent No.2 on the ground of limitation.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as this Court by order dated 01.10.2018 after considering and hearing both the parties had come to conclusion that the matter could not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. As the borrower i.e. respondent No.2 has already deposited about Rs. 6 lacs and the property in dispute is the residential house of the respondent No.2. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside and it was relegated back to consider the same afresh sympathetically. I find no ground to interfere in the remand order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. However, Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, counsel for the petitioner submitted that no time frame was set by Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in remitting back the matter for decision afresh and the Court may fix some time.
It is hereby directed that the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad shall make all endeavour to decide the said S.A. within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Keeping in mind that the petitioner is an auction purchaser and he had deposited the entire amount in the year 2015.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.2.2019 A.N. Mishra