J. JANGAIAH Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed against the order dt. 27.06.2019 passed in IA.No.5134 of 2018 in SAIR No.349 of 2018, whereby the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad dismissed the application filed by the petitioners for condonation of delay of 147 days in filing the Securitisation Application for setting aside the auction conducted by the respondent Bank.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that though the delay is properly explained and that though the Tribunal noted the contentions, without considering the same and without passing speaking order dismissed the application of the petitioners. He also submits that the subject land which is sold is an agricultural land and that as per Section 31(i) of the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') the provisions of this Act shall not apply to any security interest created in agricultural land. When property rights are involved, the Tribunal without considering the same, dismissed the application of the petitioners for condonation of delay.

(3.) On the other hand Sri P.V.Markandeyulu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent bank as well as Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for auction purchaser submits that the petitioners have not properly explained the delay in filing the application before the Tribunal. They submit that the petitioners are aware of the auction before filing of the application; and that the order passed by the Tribunal is a discretionary order which cannot be faulted. They also dispute the contention of the petitioners that the subject property is an agricultural property, as no crop is being raised in the subject property when the bank officials visited the subject property as per the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court.