Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri Anil H. Lad, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging a sale certificate dated 16 September 2015 issued by the first respondent, Punjab National Bank, in favor of the second respondent, M/s. Universal Builders, and an order dated 13 May 2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bengaluru, in S.A. No. 502 of 2014. The petitioner was a guarantor to a credit facility availed by M/s. V.S. Lad and Sons from the bank. The bank initiated recovery proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and sold the secured assets. The petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, which was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court in 2024, nearly nine years after the impugned orders. The court noted that the petition was filed after an inordinate delay of nine years without any explanation. The court held that the petition was barred by laches and delay, and that no interference was warranted. The court also found no merit in the challenge to the DRT's order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Laches - Delay in challenging sale certificate - The petitioner challenged a sale certificate dated 16.09.2015 and DRT order dated 13.05.2015 in 2024, i.e., after nine years. The court held that the petition is barred by laches and delay, as no explanation was offered for the inordinate delay. (Paras 1-3) B) SARFAESI Act - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 17 - Appeal before DRT - The petitioner, a guarantor, filed an application under Section 17 before the DRT challenging the sale of secured assets. The DRT dismissed the application. The High Court found no error in the DRT's order and upheld it. (Paras 2-3) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Interference with DRT orders - The court held that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised in favor of a person who approaches the court after an inordinate delay without any justification. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition challenging a sale certificate and DRT order after a delay of nine years is maintainable, and whether the DRT order dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was correct.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the petition is barred by laches and delay, and no interference is warranted with the DRT order.
Law Points
- Laches
- Delay defeats equity
- Limitation for challenging sale certificate
- SARFAESI Act Section 17
- DRT jurisdiction
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
