Delhi High Court recently considered whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has jurisdiction to condone a delay, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in the filing of an appeal under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). In Poonam Garg v The Chief Manager, State Bank Of Patiala & Anr, Garg filed an application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Chandigarh, which was dismissed in default. Garg’s application for recall of the DRT order was also dismissed due to non-appearance. Another application filed for restoration was dismissed on the ground that Garg had not indicated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
You must be a subscribersubscribersubscribersubscriber to read this content, please subscribesubscribesubscribesubscribe today.
For group subscribers, please click here to access.
Interested in group subscription? Please contact us.
The dispute digest is compiled by Bhasin & Co, Advocates, a corporate law firm based in New Delhi. The authors can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com. Readers should not act on the basis of this information without seeking professional legal advice.