2019 (10) TMI 1595

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ("SARFAESI Act"). 3. The background facts are that the Respondent demanded from the present Petitioner a sum of Rs. 84,17,558/- by way of a demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The DRAT has rejected the application on the ground that Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act makes no distinction between an appeal filed against an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal ("DRT") and a final order. 4. The Petitioner initially was involved in a dispute with his father and a suit C.S. (OS) No. 863/2005 was filed in this Court by his father seeking the Petitioner's eviction from the property at H-29, NDSE Part-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent to produce the original loan agreement, together with supporting documents and asked that the specimen signatures of the present Petitioner be sent to the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory ("CFSL") to seek a report as regards the genuineness of the signatures on the said loan agreement. He also prayed that the already pending O.M.P. No. 16/2015 be kept in abeyance. 9. This application was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and a detailed order was passed on 27th July, 2016, directing the present Respondent to file the original documents and the Petitioner to give his specimen signatures as well as a copy of his passport, which along with the original documents would be sent to the CFSL for purposes of com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order of the Hon'ble PO", whereas the DRT itself had granted time on 25th October, 2017 to the Petitioner to file evidence. 12.The Petitioner had then to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder and evidence and that was taken up for consideration by the DRT on 8th February, 2018. In an order passed on that date, the DRT declined to condone the delay by holding that the opportunity of filing rejoinder and evidence had already been closed by the order dated 1st September, 2017. It is against this order that the Petitioner approached the DRAT in appeal. 13. The question before the DRAT therefore was whether it should entertain the Petitioner's application for waiver of the pre-deposit. The view taken by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit. It is the Petitioner's case that he is neither the principal borrower nor mortgager of the property in question and that issue has to await the consideration of the SA filed by him on the strength of the CFSL final report which is yet awaited. It may be noticed here that it is only an interim report of the CFSL that has been submitted before the DRT. 15. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, this Court is of the view that the delay in the Petitioner filing the affidavit of the evidence and rejoinder before the DRT ought to be condoned. It is plain that by the order dated 25th October, 2017 the DRT had in fact granted time to the Petitioner to file both the rejoinder and the evidence and th....