The Supreme Court noted that the SARFAESI Act’s Section 17 allows for the filing of an application within 45 days, allowing for prompt enforcement of the security.
The Debts Recovery Tribunal must receive applications challenging secured debt recovery actions within 45 days of the date such actions were initiated, according to Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
In this instance, the DRT rejected the Section 17 application on the grounds that it had been submitted beyond the 45-day legal deadline. Later, it granted the petition for review filed in opposition to this ruling.
The DRAT overturned this decision, noting that the exercise of the review authority never appeared to have involved a mistake. The DRAT ruling was suspended when a writ petition contesting it was submitted to the High Court, allowing DRT to move through with the Securitization Application.
The High Court’s decision to block the DRAT’s order from taking effect was not warranted, the Apex Court’s bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha noted in an appeal, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the DRT’s decision to use its review authority and recall its ruling. The judge noted:
“The reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment. In Transcore v. Union of India and Anr. this Court held that the SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security. It is unfortunate that proceedings where a property that has been brought to sale and third-party rights created under the provisions of the Act, have remained inconclusive even after a decade.”
The bench overturned the contested interim judgement and ordered the High Court to resolve the Writ Petition quickly, ideally within three months.
read more at advocatetanwar.com