MR SELVAM vs INDIAN BANK on 11 June 2026

**ORDER**

The present application is filed seeking a direction to the respondent bank to issue sale certificate and deliver possession of the secured asset upon receipt of the balance sale consideration of ₹15,00,000/-. Briefly stated, the applicant was declared the highest bidder in an auction conducted in the year 2013. However, confirmation of sale was made subject to the outcome of SA No.3/2013, wherein it was directed that sealed tenders may be opened but the sale shall not be confirmed. It is an admitted position that the SA

Page No. 01

UMA 1544/20212

No.3/2013 came to be dismissed on 17.01.2013. The present application has been filed on 31.07.2021.

2. It is not in dispute that the applicant was declared the highest bidder in the auction conducted in the year 2013 and that the confirmation of sale was expressly made subject to the outcome of SA No.3/2013. It is further an admitted position that SA No.3/2013 stood dismissed on 17.01.2013. Upon dismissal of the said securitisation application, the embargo operating against confirmation of sale ceased to exist. Thus, the cause of action, if any, accrued to the applicant on 17.01.2013.

3. The present application has been filed on 31.07.2021, i.e., after an inordinate delay of more than eight years. The plea of the applicant that he acquired knowledge of dismissal only on 20.02.2020 is unsupported by any cogent material. The applicant, being an auction purchaser whose rights were contingent upon the outcome of the said proceedings, was under a legal obligation to remain vigilant and to pursue the matter with due diligence. It is well settled that the plea of "date of knowledge" cannot be accepted in the absence of proof of due diligence, particularly where the party had a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings. The applicant has failed to discharge the burden. Even assuming, arguendo, that the applicant acquired knowledge on 20.02.2020, the application filed on 31.07.2021 is still beyond the prescribed period of 45 days, and no sufficient cause has been shown to explain such delay. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B K Educational Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Parag Gupta & Associates has held that limitation provisions must be applied with full rigour, and in State of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., it has been reiterated that where a statute prescribed a specific limitation period, the same must be strictly adhered to. Accordingly, this Tribunal holds that the present application is barred by limitation.

Typed in India

UMA 1544/20213

4. The relief sought by the applicant is for issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession upon payment of the balance sale consideration. Such relief does not arise from any alleged illegality in the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Section 17 provides of a remedy to a borrower or any person aggrieved by the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4). The grievance of the present applicant, however, pertains to enforcement of rights flowing from an auction sale, which is essentially contractual in nature. In absence of any challenge to the measures under Section 13(4), the present application falls outside the scope of Section 17. The remedy, if any, lies elsewhere in accordance with law. The Agarwal Tracon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the jurisdiction under Section 17 is confined to examining the legality of measures taken under Section 13(4) and does not extend to enforcement of contractual rights arising out of auction sales. Accordingly, the application is not maintainable.

5. Even on equitable considerations, the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The applicant remained indolent for several years and failed to take any steps to ascertain the status of SA No.3/2013 or seek confirmation of sale within a reasonable period. Such prolonged and unexplained inaction amounts to gross negligence and attracts the doctrine of delay and laches. It is settled principle that equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Entertaining such a ^Stale state claim at this stage would cause prejudice to the respondent bank and defeat the principles of finality in litigation. In Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. Vs K Thangappan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that relief ought to be declined where there is inordinate delay and the party has been negligent in asserting its rights.

6. In view of the foregoing findings, this Tribunal holds that:-

i. The application is barred by limitation:

Sayed Ali Hafez

UMA 1544/20214

ii. The application is not maintainable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act; and

iii. The applicant is not entitled to any relief on account of delay and laches.

7. Accordingly, the Unnumbered Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.

*[Dictated to my Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Tribunal on this the 11^th day of June, 2026]*

11.6.26 [ IMTIAZ ALI ]

Typed by: Dalia

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - 1, KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

PRESENT: SRI IMTIAZ ALI PRESIDING OFFICER

Dated the 11^th day of June, 2026

**Unnumbered Miscellaneous Application No.1544 of 2021**

Between

Selvam, B M Road, Josephth Church, Opp. Andresonpet, K. G. F.-563113. ....Petitioner/defendant

And

Indian Bank, Sadashivanagara Branch, Rep. by its Branch Manager, No.9/19, Sankey Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore-560041 and another. ...Respondents/Applicants

**ORDER**

11.06.26