- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45350-DB WP No. 24106 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 24106 OF 2023 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: SMT. S.VEENA W/O R.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 9/6, 12TH MAIN, POST OFFICE ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHANJU.N.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V.NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE) AND: THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, ARMS-A DIVISION OF ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED, THE RUBY, 10TH FLOOR, 29, SENAPATHI BAPAT MARG, DADAR (W), MUMBAI - 400 028. …RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR Digitally signed by S NOORUNNISABEGUM Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45350-DB WP No. 24106 of 2023 DIRECTION QUASHING POSSESSION NOTICE AT ANNEXURE-L DATED 6/3/2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-N DATED 19/12/2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN TSA No. 118/2017, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-S DATED 5/1/2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN MISC APPLICATION No. 25/2020 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-W DATED 12/07/2023 PASSED BY HON'BLE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN IA No. 16/2022 (DELAY) IN A.IR 1/2022. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. Despite service of notice, no one has represented for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai (hereinafter - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45350-DB WP No. 24106 of 2023 referred as DRAT) in I.A.No.16/2022 in A.I.R:1/2022. The petitioner’s application before the DRT-II, Bengaluru, sought to restore his original application, which was dismissed by the DRT-II vide order dated 05.01.2021 on the ground of delay was subject matter of the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the DRT-II, Bengaluru, the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application I.A.No.16/2022 seeking condonation of a delay of 296 days. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had sought to explain the delay in two parts i.e., first part, from January 2021 to April 2021, on the ground of Covid -19 pandemic and second part, on the ground of search for counsel in Chennai. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal took the view that first part of delay because of Covid-19 could be accepted, but so far as second part of delay is concerned, no sufficient reason or satisfactory explanation was offered. Therefore, the I.A., for seeking condonation of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45350-DB WP No. 24106 of 2023 delay was dismissed, leading to the rejection of A.I.R.No.1/2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a suo motu petition (In re- cognizance for extension of limitation), vide order dated 10.01.2022, has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation as would be prescribed under any general or special law in respect of all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The counsel argues that if this period is excluded in computing the limitation for filing the appeal before the DRAT, the petitioner's appeal would be on time, and the application seeking condonation of delay of 296 days should have been allowed. 5. The petitioner filed the appeal in January 2022. Since the limitation period for filing the appeal expired during the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 which the Supreme Court directed to be excluded, we are of the view - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45350-DB WP No. 24106 of 2023 that the appeal should have been treated as having been filed within the prescribed limitation period. Thus, we set aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai and remand the matter back to the Debts Recovery Tribunal for a decision on merits. 6. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider whether the application of the petitioner, seeking condonation of a 109 days delay in filing the recall application, ought to have been rejected. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the DRAT order requires an interference by the DRAT, and therefore we allow the appeal in terms of the direction in para 6 above. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30