2022 (8) TMI 594

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent Company against the order in appeal by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT' dated 02.12.2016. By this order the challenge laid to the Sale Certificate issued in favour of the Auction Purchaser under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' was dismissed on the ground of limitation. While issuing notice, this Court had stayed the impugned interim order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench and the order of stay continues to hold the field. 3. The short facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as follows. The first Respondent Comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....referred sale certificate in an application under Section 17 of the Act by the Respondent Company and the Directors. It is important to mention at this stage that, the application under Section 17 was filed by the Company, its three Directors, being Sri Vinod Kumar, Smt. Gayatri Devi and Sri Rameshwar Prasad. The other Director Sri Rakesh Sharma, who expired on 18.09.2012 was represented by his legal representatives. 7. After hearing the Company, its Directors and the legal representatives of the deceased Director, the DRT dismissed the Section 17 application on the ground that it was filed beyond the statutory period of limitation of 45 days. According to Section 17(1), the period of 45 days is mandated to commence from the date on whic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2016 shall remain stayed and the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall proceed with the Securitization Application." 11. We are only concerned with the limited question as to whether the High Court was justified in passing the interim order as extracted herein above. This is a case where the Company, with its own independent identity, is contesting the proceedings. It is apparent that the Directors were also contesting the matter by filing the Section 17 application. Even the legal representatives of one of the deceased Directors were party to the application under Section 17. Further, DRAT came to the conclusion that the original order passed by the DRT has been arrived at after a detailed consideration and that there is no justifiable ground ....