RAJU ENTERPRISES Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-proprietary concern, having failed to repay the outstanding loans, suffered a tag of Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 29/5/2017. The bank initiated coercive action by issuing the Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereafter '2002 Act'). It had also filed an application u/s 14 of the 2002 Act, which came to be favoured by the Deputy Commissioner on 10/10/2019, followed by an endorsement issued by the Tahasildar on 27/12/2019. Eventually, the Possession of security assets was taken with the assistance of Police on 7/1/2020. There was Writ Petition followed by a Writ Appeal and an Special Leave Petition too. Appellate remedy was reserved to the Petitioners. Be that as it may.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the impugned order dtd. 17/1/2022 made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal has an error apparent on its face since it denies relief to the Petitioners in S.A.No.227/2021 on the sheer ground of delay when arithmetical demonstration shows that there is none. He cites the demonetization as the primary reason for the non- repayment of the debts; he quotes the intervening COVID- 19 Pandemic as being the cause for delay in approaching the DRT for working out the grievance of his clients. To put it succinctly, his clients application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered on merits.This having not been done, counsel contends, there is a huge error apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons: