ANTONY SAMY Vs. REGISTRAR, DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) in the year 2012 and also other financial assistance/facilities and in view of the default committed by the petitioner, a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (in short " SARFAESI Act ") came to be issued, demanding a sum of Rs.10,32,902/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Two only) as on 26.05.2016 and it was followed by a possession notice.

(2.) The second respondent bank also issued an e-auction sale notice on 07.03.2017 fixing the date as 27.03.2017 and the petitioner also made arrangements to pay the portion of the dues. However, the second respondent bank insisted to pay the entire sum of Rs.9,76,500/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) in his Savings Account and the second respondent bank assured that it will be adjusted towards the loan and believing the same, the petitioner has also deposited a sum of Rs.9,76,500/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand and Five Hundred only) on 10.04.2017. However, the second respondent bank proceeded with the recovery and conducted sale on 27.03.2017 and in the light of the same, the successful auction bidder has also deposited the amount and out of the sale proceeds, the loan amount has been adjusted and thereafter, the Sale Certificate came to be executed on 03.08.2017. Challenging the legality of the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the auction purchaser, he filed an Application in e-DRT Diary No. 384 of 2020 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the light of the fact that the petitioner was also diligently prosecuting the writ proceedings in W.P(MD)Nos.18239 of 2017 and 17099 of 2017, he is entitled to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act.