Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DAILYLAW 2609 (DEL)

Ajit Singh Lamba v. UCO Bank

2013-04-05

Indermeet Kaur, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

body2013
CM No. 4042/2013 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. WP (C) No. 2137/2013 Rule DB. 1. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Bank accepts notice. At request of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 26.2.2013 of the DRAT dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as being barred by time. 3. The factual matrix is that when the appeal was listed before the DRAT, as per the office report, it was stated to be barred by 56 days. On the other hand, the contention of the petitioner was that the order sought to be assailed in the appeal was passed on 19.11.2012 and having come to know of the same on 7.12.2012, immediately a certified copy was applied for which was made available on 14.1.2013. Thus, excluding the period for obtaining certified copy the appeal was within time. 4. It may be noticed that the appellant filed IA No. 137/2013 to bring this factual matrix on record. The DRAT also called for the report from the office and it transpired that a photocopy of the order was delivered at the residence of the petitioner on 19.12.2012. Such a copy is stated to have been sent as per Rule 16 of the DRT (Procedure) Rules free of cost. The original sent to the petitioner has been produced before us and perused which shows that it is a photocopy of the order. 5. The plea advanced by the petitioner was that under Rule 11 of the DRAT (Procedure) Rules, 1994 it is mandatory that, at least, one certified copy of the order of the DRT should be filed along with the appeal. Since the photocopy sent had not been authenticated by any seal of the DRT, it could not have been treated as a certified copy for purposes of filing of the appeal. 6. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the DRAT has discussed various judicial pronouncements on the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI Act'). The view taken by the Madras High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court is that the provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply to appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 7. The view taken by the Madras High Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court is that the provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply to appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that there is a contra view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sajida Begum v. State Bank of India, SARC Nampally, Hyderabad, I (2013) BC 24 (CN)= AIR 2013 AP 24 . 8. In our considered view, it is not necessary to go into this aspect of possible conflict of views of different High Courts for the present petition as according to the petitioner the appeal itself was filed within, time. 9. There is no doubt that the certified copy was applied within time, certified copy of the order was obtained and the appeal was filed within time after excluding the time spent for obtaining certified copy. The fact that the DRT sends a photocopy of the order to the petitioner for intimation cannot imply that the appeal filed by the petitioner based on the certified copy obtained by him is beyond time. This is apart from the fact that on perusal of the order we find that it is only a photocopy of the order and not an authenticated certified copy of the order. 10. We are, thus, of the view that the appeal filed by the petitioner after obtaining certified copy is within time and is, thus, required to be entertained on merits. 11. The impugned order dated 26.2.2013 is set aside and the Rule is made absolute leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 12. The parties to appear before the DRAT for hearing of admission of appeal on 15.4.2013. CM No. 4041/2013 (Stay) In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the application does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Dasti to learned Counsels for the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.