PAWAN OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dtd. 12/3/2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as DRT) in Second Appeal No. 519/2022 which was dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 had applied for a loan in the year 2014 to the tune of Rs.78.00 lakhs from the respondent No.2/Bank under the Mukhya Mantri Yuwa Udyami Yojana at subsidized/concessional rate of interest to promote the MSME sector. The scheme of said loan facility did not prescribe any co-lateral security to be offered for the loan. However, the lease deed of the subject property bearing Khasra No. 87/2 (new khasra no. 87/2/1 and 87/2/2), village Maijampur (Balsamund) Tehsil Kashawad, District Khargone admearing 1.620 hectare was mortgaged against the said loan. On 28/7/2016, the respondent No.2/Bank classified petitioners' account as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and served notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('the SARFAESI Act, 2002). In October 2021, the subject property was auctioned. Thereafter, the bank filed an application under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002 before the Additional District Magistrate for assistance in delivery of the possession. Meanwhile, the petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P.No. 3188/2022 which was disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and decide the objections filed by the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 vide order dtd. 13/5/2022 disposed of the objections raised by the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the DRT in Second Appeal No. 519/2022 which was dismissed vide the impugned order on the ground of limitation. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned DRT has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners had glaring and stark merits on the facts and law in their favour and as such, the appeal ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of non-condonation of delay. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. He further submits that against the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the Securitization Appeal under Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRAT Allahabad which is pending. Hence, it is prayed that till the DRAT takes up the interim application for stay, the effect, operation and execution of the impugned order be stayed.