Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010069132026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2133/2026 NINA BHAGOWATI AND ANR WIFE OF SRI NARENDRA NATH BHAGOWATI,, RESIDENT OF SECTOR 2, LANE NO.6, BORDOLOI NAGAR, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM- 786125 2: SRI ANIRBAN BHAGOWATI SON OF SRI NARENDRA NATH BHAGOWATI RESIDENT OF SECTOR 2 LANE NO.6 BORDOLOI NAGAR DISTRICT- TINSUKIA ASSAM- 78612 VERSUS ICICI BANK LIMITED AND 3 ORS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND A BANKING COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE BANKING REGULATIONS ACT, 1949 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ICICI BANK TOWER, NEAR CHAKLI CIRCLE, OLD PADRA ROAD, VADODARA- 390007, GUJARAT AND ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI- 400051 2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER ICICI BANK LIMITED RANGHAR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX GNB ROAD TINSUKIA ASSAM- 786125 3:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ICICI BANK LIMITED LANDMARK BUILDING 4TH FLOOR Page No.# 2/7 228A AJC BOSE ROAD KOLKATA- 770020 4:UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI- 11000 For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. K. K. Nandi, Advocate Ms. S. Dey, Advocate Ms. A. Saha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 20.08.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. K.K. Nandi, learned Advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. M. Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 26.02.2026, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter to be referred to as “Tribunal”), in Appeal Dy. No. 956/2025. The petitioners are the guarantors of the borrower, who had taken credit facilities from the respondent/ICICI bank. When the loan went bad, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) was initiated against the petitioners. A sale notice was also issued on 09.04.2025 with respect to the secured property. Page No.# 3/7 The petitioners challenged the action of the creditor/ bank under section 17 of the SARFASI Act, before the Tribunal sometimes in the month of May, 2025, by filing an application through e-filing system of the Tribunal, after payment of the requisite/prescribed fees. However, it appears from the records that the hard copy of the e-application could not be filed within 7 days, as required under Rule 4(2) of the The Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing Rules, 2020 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules of 2020”). Section 4 of the Rules of 2020, referred to above, is being reproduced below for ready reference. “4. Procedure for e-filing. – (1) Pleadings as prescribed for specific purposes under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, may be filed by an applicant in electronic form, through the e-DRT system; (2) After e-filing, the applicant shall file a hard copy of the said pleading, along with a copy of the acknowledgment for e filing within seven working days of the day of e-filing in person or by his agent or by a duly authorized legal practitioner before the Registry of the Tribunal; (3) Where the pleading is filed in electronic form and in paper form by the applicant, before the Registry, the date of filing of the pleadings in the Tribunal shall be the date of submission of the last page of a pleading through the e-DRT system; (4) The Tribunal may exercise its discretion to allow certain related documents to be filed only in the conventional manner, even when the applicant has made the pleading by e-filing.” The Rules of 2020 provide for filing an application in electronic form through the e-DRT system. However, according Rule 4(2), after filing the e-application, the applicant is required to file the hard copy of the said e-application/pleadings along with a copy of the acknowledgement of e-filing, within seven working days of the day of e- Page No.# 4/7 filing, in person, or by his agent, or by a duly authorized legal practitioner before the Registry of the Tribunal. It is the contention of the petitioners that there had been some mis- communication on the part of the earlier counsel engaged in the matter; as a result of which the hard copy of the pleadings could not be filed within 7 days from the date of e-filing of the application, which fact remained unknown to the petitioners, as it was never communicated to them. However, in the meanwhile, the bank proceeded further and the petitioners stood dispossessed from the secured property. It was only later in point of time that the petitioners could learn about the hard copy of the pleadings having not been filed within the 7 days of the filing of the e-application. For the afore-noted reason, the Registrar of the Tribunal rejected the e-application filed by the petitioners after passage of 7 days. There is nothing on record, it has been argued by Mr. Nandi, that any communication was made from the end of the Registrar of the Tribunal informing the petitioners that the e-application filed by the petitioners was defective for want of filing the hard copy of the application within a particular time, so that it could be rectified. However, since the rejection of the application by the Registrar at the threshold was made known to the petitioners much later, an appeal was filed by the petitioners under Rule 5(5) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Rules of 1993”). The appeal filed under Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 1993 was heard on 26.02.2026, wherein the Tribunal held that the Registrar of the Tribunal had exceeded his Page No.# 5/7 jurisdiction in rejecting the application of the petitioners, but the Tribunal did not allow the application to be registered on the ground that the petitioners had failed to justify the delay in filing the hard copy of the e- application within the prescribed time. According to the Tribunal, since the hard copy of the e-application had been filed after 120 days from the date of issuance of the sale notice dated 09.04.2025, the petitioners had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 4(2) of the Rules of 2020. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. Mr. Nandi has pointed out that there is no provision for appeal against such an order passed by the Tribunal. The only provision available under the Rules of 1993 is Rule 5A, which provides for filing a review application under some specified circumstances only, viz. when there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and not otherwise. He further submits that the afore-noted order passed by the Tribunal cannot even be challenged before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, for the reason that such appeal would be maintainable only against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, and not otherwise. In such circumstances, Mr. Nandi has argued, in sum and substance, the petitioners have been rendered completely remediless against a serious consequential action of the bank in dispossessing the petitioners of their property. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/bank, however, has submitted that an appeal would be maintainable under section 18 of the Page No.# 6/7 SARFAESI Act, 2002. A plain reading of section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 reflects that an appeal is maintainable only against an order passed by the Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Furthermore, an appeal to be maintained before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, there is a mandatory requirement of depositing 50% of the amount of debt, as claimed by the secured creditor, or as determined by the DRT, whichever is less. This itself makes any appeal against an order passed under Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 1993 not appealable under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. That apart, we find that, according to the Rules of 1993, any order passed under Rule 5(5) of the Rules of 1993 becomes final. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that a person, whether a borrower or a creditor, cannot be rendered remediless. Thus, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal Dy. No. 956/2025 and remand the matter to the Tribunal to give a relook at the same. The Tribunal shall take into account the circumstances under which the hard copy of the e- application could not be filed by the petitioners within time, as also the fact that if such an application is not entertained on merits, the petitioners shall be rendered completely remediless. In order to avoid such a situation, this order has been passed by this Court with the hope and trust that the Tribunal shall look into the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Page No.# 7/7 The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant