Does Debts Recovery Tribunal have power to condone delay under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act? Supreme Court to consider

The Supreme Court will examine a plea challenging a Kerala High Court judgment which held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) has no power to condone the delay under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 [KJ George v. Authorised Officer, Indian Bank]..The Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari issued notice against a challenge to the High Court order, which had set aside an order of the DRT, Ernakulam..The petitioners are guarantors to a loan availed by a company. Their property, claimed to be worth more than Rs. 2 crore, was pledged as security to the loan. The alleged delay and mishandling by the circle office of Indian Bank to process the loan enhancement project led to default of interest payments. The Bank thus classified the account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA)..The Bank eventually took possession of the property under the SARFAESI Act, despite the contention of the petitioners that the same was agricultural land. They then filed a petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the same. During the pendency of this plea, the Bank issued sale and auction notices with respect to the property.Meanwhile, in December 2011, the High Court disposed of the petition, giving the petitioners liberty to approach the DRT, Ernakulam for relief..In January 2012, the petitioners came to know that the Bank had sold the properties in violation of an earlier order passed by the DRT..In April 2018, the DRT set aside the notice and sale of the property by the Bank on the ground that there was no clear 30 days notice as per the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. This prompted the Bank to approach the High Court, which on November 2, 2020, set aside the DRT order on the ground that Tribunal has no power to condone the delay..Thus, the petitioners approached the apex court in appeal..The plea before the Supreme Court filed through Advocate G Prakash stated that while reversing the judgment, the High Court failed to appreciate the relief granted to the petitioners by the High Court in its 2011 order..Further, the delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act can be condoned under the provisions of Section 20(3) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDDBFI) Act, 1993, the petitioners claimed..It was further contended that the High Court did not take into account the underlying principle in the Supreme Court's decision in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India, in which it was held that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act..The plea before apex court sought an authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court stating that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act barring the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India. Section 17 of the Act deals with the right to appeal against an action by a bank to take possession of property or any other action with respect to enforcement of security interest. .It was stated that Sections 17 and 18 are similarly worded, and hence the ruling in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal must apply to proceedings under Section 17 as well..The Court has issued notice returnable in four weeks..[Read Order]