PRAKASH MALLI Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRAT') in AIR(SA) No. 65 of 2011, dated 31-10-2012 (Annexure-E) is assailed in these writ petitions. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioners had borrowed a housing loan from the first respondent-Bank to an extent of Rs. 6,36,000/- in the year 2003. As the petitioners did not repay the said amount, the Bank initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act"), Demand notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of that Act was issued followed by possession notice under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. Those notices were assailed by the petitioners in IR No. 1460 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred as "the DRT") at Bangalore. There was a delay of eight days in filing that appeal. The DRT by its order dated 1-10-2010 dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners preferred AIR(SA) No. 65 of 2011 before the DRAT. Once again there was a delay of sixty-one days in preferring the appeal. The DRAT by its order dated 31-10-2012, dismissed the appeal by following the orders of the Madras High Court. It is against that order, these writ petitions have been preferred.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C. Laxman Gowda and Another v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and Others, 2014 ILR(Kar) 15and contended that the Appellate Tribunal has the jurisdiction to condone delay in filing the appeal before it. He, therefore, stated that the order of the Appellate Tribunal would have to be quashed.