DEUSTCHE BANK vs AQUA CARGO CARE LOGISTICS on 9 April 2025

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – II AT CHENNAI

Dated this 9th day of April, 2025

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA

Presiding Officer (In-charge)

NDN (SA) No.235 of 2025

Mr. Shrinivasan Venkatachalam

C Block, F1, Navin Tara Garden Apartment No.4/318, OMR, Kottivakkam Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041

…Applicant

Versus

1.

The Authorised Officer

Bajaj Finance Limited

Unit No.804, 805, 806 Delta Wing, 8th Floor Raheja Towers 177, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002

2.

Mr. Biju Kumar

S/o Sudharshan Nair

No.12, West Vanniyar Street

Nesapakkam, Chennai – 600 078

…Defendants

ORDERS ON LIMITATION

1.

The present SA is filed on 14.02.2025.

2.

The prayer in the SA is to set aside the sale held on 27.02.2024

pursuant to the Sale Notice dated 06.02.2024.

3.

The registry has pointed out that the present SA is filed with the delay of 314 days.

4.

Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act prescribes the period of limitation as 45 days from the date of measure. Therefore, the applicant ought to have filed the SA within 45 days either from 06.02.2024 or 27.02.2024.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that the delay is not intentional but within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge.

6.

In order to establish the contention that the SA is filed in time, the applicant relies on Para 13 of the SA which is as under: - “The applicant submits that in the Counter filed by the Respondent in Para No.3 it is stated that “I submit that thereafter another sale notice dated 06.02.2024 was issued fixing the sate of sale as 27.02.2024. The secured asset was sold in auction conducted on 27.02.2024. In the said auction conducted on 27.02.2024, the schedule mentioned secured asset was sold to the proposed 2nd respondent / Auction purchase. But the present SA is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 22.12.2023 but the asset was sold in respect of the auction notice dated 06.02.2024. Hence, the auction purchaser who purchased the property vide auction conducted on 27.02.2024 cannot be impleaded in the present SA, as the same stands infrucutous. When the SA itself is infructuous, the applicant cannot implead a person who is no way connected to the Sale Notice dated 22.12.2023”.

the said fact is no way informed before this Hon'ble Tribunal and on 09-04- 2024 while admitting the sale conducted and also at the time also Respondent never informed about the Sale Notice dated 06.02.204.”

7.

From the above contents pleaded, it is clear that in the earlier SA

No.51/2024 challenged the sale notice dated 22.12.2023 fixing the sale on 30.01.2024.

8.

The said SA 51/2024 is disposed on 30.01.2025 as becoming infructuous since the sale took place on 27.02.2024 pursuant to the sale notice dated 6.2.2024, which was issued.

9.

It is found from the pleadings of the SA that the interim orders passed in SA 51/2024 is not complied. It is admitted in Para 8 of the SA

that “SA 51/2024 conditional order was passed and posted the matter for 13.02.2024 but the applicant who already made huge payments was not able to comply with the same and further requested for sufficient time to settle the loan account”.

10.

It is the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that the sale notice now challenged dated 06.02.2024 fixing the sale to be held on 27.02.2024 came to the knowledge of the applicant only on 2.1.2025.

11.

Therefore, it is submitted that the SA is in time from the date of knowledge of the sale notice.

12.

The provisions of Section 17(1), which reads as under, is very clear that the period for limitation runs from the date of the “measure”

and not from the date of knowledge.

(1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, 1[may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:—

13.

Further more, it is very difficult to agree with the contention of the Ld. Counsel that the applicant having earlier filed SA 262/2023 and SA

51/2024 was not put to the knowledge from the very pleadings at Para 4

of the limitation it is submitted that the publication of the sale notices were carried out in “New Indian Express” on 9.2.2024. Furthermore the period to reckon the limitation cannot be taken from the date of knowledge. In fact, the applicant is pleading at Para 13 that “The said fact in no way informed before this Tribunal and on 9.4.2024 while admitting the sale conducted and also at the time also respondent never informed about the sale notice 6.2.2024”. This pleading shows that the applicant was aware about the sale as far back as 9.4.2024.

14.

In view of the position of law the limitation runs from the date of the measure, this Tribunal cannot direct the registration of the SA which is filed beyond limitation of 314 days. Accordingly the following: -