SAJIDA BEGUM Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein has challenged the order dated 04.05.2012 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, being I.A.No.1654 of 2010 in AIR(SA).No.1012 of 2010.

(2.) THE aforesaid appeal and the interlocutory application were preferred before DRAT against order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II (DRT), Hyderabad in S.A.No.142 of 2010 dated 27.08.2010. In the said appeal before DRT, the petitioner had questioned the possession taken over by the respondents with regard to the secured asset i.e. house bearing No.18-12-419/941/A/1 situated at Hafez Baba Nagar, Kanchan Bagh, Hyderabad. Petitioner asserts that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the said house property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 27.02.2009 executed by her husband, Mohd. Nazeer Khan, whereas the respondent bank asserts that it is a secured asset, which was mortgaged by Smt Khaiser Begum by depositing the registered Gift Deed dated 04.02.1995 executed by her husband Mohammed Arif Khan and the said mortgage was created in favour of the respondent bank on 14.11.1995 by virtue of term loan and working capital limit availed by M/s. Bio Vet Formulations represented by its proprietor, Sri Arif Khan. While we are not for the present concerned with the merits of the rival claims, as above, S.A.No.142 of 2010 preferred by the petitioner was, however, dismissed on merits by DRT under order dated 27.08.2010 and questioning the correctness of the said order, petitioner had preferred further appeal before DRAT along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 16 days in filing the said appeal. The application, being I.A.No.1654 of 2010, has since been dismissed by DRAT under the impugned order by placing reliance upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in SETH BANSHIDHAR KEDIA RICE MILLS PVT. LTD v. STATE BANK OF INDIA1 holding that under Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 the appellate tribunal has no power to condone the delay in presentation of the appeal. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, learned standing counsel for the respondent bank placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in L.S. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.6; THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW v. M/s. PARSON TOOLS AND PLANTS, KANPUR7; BIRLA CEMENT WORKS v. G.M. WESTERN RAILWAYS8; PRAKASH H. JAIN v. MARIE FERNANDES9; a judgment of the Kerala High Court in JAYAN v. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD.10; NOHARLAL VERMA v. DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED11 and lastly the decision of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE v. HONGO INDIA P. LTD.12.