Navin Kr. Dwivedi Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court, in Navin Kr. Dwivedi Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, set aside an order dated 15 July 2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow, dismissing a securitisation application as time-barred. The petitioner had challenged the respondent bank’s actions under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), particularly an auction notice dated 9 April 2025 proposing an e-auction on 16 May 2025. The petitioner also questioned the bank’s possession proceedings under Section 14 and alleged non-compliance with Rules 8(6) and 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. During the proceedings, the proposed auction was not conducted, and the bank issued another notice dated 18 June 2025, which the petitioner sought to challenge through an amendment application. The DRT nevertheless dismissed the securitisation application filed on 6 May 2025, reasoning that the petitioner had participated in the Section 14 proceedings culminating in an order dated 30 January 2025 and that the application was therefore beyond limitation.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the DRT had incorrectly calculated limitation exclusively from the earlier possession proceedings without considering the subsequent auction notice, which constituted an independent cause of action. Reliance was placed on M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Andhra Bank and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. to establish that measures taken after Section 13(4), including possession and auction proceedings, could be challenged before the DRT under Section 17. The respondent bank contended that an alternative appellate remedy was available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon. The principal issue was whether the petitioner’s failure to challenge the earlier Section 14 order within limitation prevented a subsequent challenge to a fresh auction notice.
The High Court held that each actionable measure taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act gives rise to a separate cause of action for an aggrieved person to approach the DRT. Applying the reasoning in Alpine Pharmaceuticals, the Court found that the securitisation application filed on 6 May 2025 was within limitation insofar as it challenged the auction notice dated 9 April 2025. The earlier Section 14 order could not render the challenge to the subsequent auction notice time-barred. The Court also rejected the bank’s objection regarding the alternative appellate remedy because the DRT’s decision was contrary to the applicable legal principle. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the DRT was directed to decide the securitisation application afresh after considering the amendment application and the cited precedent. The earlier interim protection was continued until disposal of the applications, while the DRT was permitted to proceed ex parte if the petitioner failed to cooperate. The petition was allowed.
- Cases Discussed
- M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Andhra Bank — Writ Petition No. 13936 of 2019, decided on 24 January 2020. Relied upon and followed for the principle that subsequent measures under Section 13(4), including an auction notice, provide an independent cause of action for proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
- Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. — (2011) 2 SCC 782 (Supreme Court). Cited for the proposition that action under Section 14 falls within the ambit of measures challengeable under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
- United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon and Ors. — (2010) 8 SCC 110 (Supreme Court). Relied upon by the respondent bank in support of its objection based on the availability of an alternative statutory appellate remedy.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in S.A. No.469 of 2025 by DRT, Lucknow.
2. By means of the said order, the DRT has held that the S.A. filed by the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that while recording the said finding, the law as laid down in the cases of M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Andhra Bank (Writ Petition No.13936 of 2019) Dated 24.01.2020 as well as in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; (2011) 2 SCC 782 has not been considered. He places reliance on Para 71 of M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Para 22 of the Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra), which are quoted herein under, to argue that ex-facie the finding that the proceedings are barred by limitation is incorrect:
“71. From these decisions, it follows that the series of steps from the date of issue of Section 13(4) of the Act, up to the date of the auction notice can be challenged by the borrower when he challenges the auction notice under Section 17 of the Act; though the cause of action started when possession was taken, the said cause of action is continued by the issuance of auction sale notice by the Bank; even if the borrower had not filed an Application under Section 17 of the Act at the time of his dispossession, he cannot be deprived of the opportunity to approach the DRT for post Section13(4) events as well; and the DRT is entitled to question the action taken by the secured creditor and the transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4) of the Act.
***
22. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under Section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT.”
4. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that against the said order, an appeal is prescribed under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act. He places reliance on the judgment in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors.; (2010) 8 SCC 110.
5. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had approached the DRT by moving an application challenging the action of the respondent Bank in proceeding to sell the properties contrary to the prescriptions contained in the SARFAESI Act. It was argued that the auction notice dated 09.04.2025 proposing to hold the e-auction on 16.05.2025 requires interference. In the said S.A. it was also stated that in pursuance to an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the action of the respondent Bank in taking possession was also bad in law. Grounds were also taken to argue that the mandate of Rule 8(6) and Rule 8(8) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 have not been followed. During the pendency of the proceedings, no auction was held in pursuance to the publication dated 09.04.2025 and subsequently, a fresh notice was issued. The petitioner moved an application challenging the subsequent notice dated 18.06.2025 proposing to sell the property in question which was challenged by means of an amendment. As the pending applications were not being decided, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing a petition being Matters Under Article 227 No.3910 of 2025 which was disposed off by this Court on 01.07.2025 directing the DRT to decide the applications afresh in accordance with law and to decide the S.A. itself on merits. In terms of the said directions, the impugned order has been passed.
6. The DRT noticed that the order was passed under Section 14 and in the said proceedings, the petitioner had appeared and the order was passed in his presence on 30.01.2025 and the S.A. in question was filed on 06.05.2025 rendering the S.A. as being beyond limitation, and thus, proceeded to dismiss the S.A. The other applications were subsequently dismissed.
7. In the light of the said, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the dismissal of the S.A. on the limitation is wholly unjustified as the petitioner had also challenged the action of the respondent in proposing to sell the properties through publication dated 09.04.2025 which itself was a separate cause of action and thus, the S.A. filed on 06.05.2025 was within the limitation from the date of publication i.e. 09.04.2025. Merely because no action was taken for sell as proposed in the publication dated 09.04.2025, the S.A. could not be termed as beyond limitation particularly when an amendment application was filed challenging the subsequent publication by the petitioner.
8. Considering the judgment in the case of M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), it is clear that all the actions prescribed under Section 13(4) give a separate cause of action to the person aggrieved to approach the DRT by filing the S.A. As the petitioner had approached the DRT challenging the publication dated 09.04.2025 and the proposed auction on 16.05.2025, the said S.A. was within the limitation; merely because Section 14 order was not challenged within the time prescribed, the DRT could not have rejected the application challenging the subsequent publication proposing an auction as being beyond limitation.
9. As the order of the DRT is ex-facie contrary to the law as explained in the case of M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the objections of the respondent that the petitioner be relegated to remedy of appeal, merits rejection and is accordingly rejected.
10. Impugned order dated 15.07.2025 is set aside with direction to the DRT to decide the S.A. afresh after taking into consideration the amendment filed and in the light of the judgment in the case of M/s. Alpine Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
11. The interim order passed by this Court on 01.07.2025 in Matters Under Article 227 No.3910 of 2025 shall continue to operate till the disposal of the applications filed by the petitioner afresh, as directed above.
12. In case the petitioner does not cooperate with the hearing before the DRT, the DRT would be entitled to decide the S.A. ex-parte and in the absence of the petitioner.
13. Present petition stands allowed in above terms.
