Kerala High Court
K.P.Jayan vs Hong Kong And Shanghai Banking on 2 April, 2009
Author: Harun-Ul-Rashid
Bench: Harun-Ul-Rashid
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22192 of 2007(P)
1. K.P.JAYAN, KONACKAL HOUSE, EDATHALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
... Respondent
2. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, (UNDER CENTRAL
3. V.P.SUNITHA RAGHU, PANJAVADI APARTMENTS,
For Petitioner :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY
For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :02/04/2009
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22192 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
1. Ext.P1 order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam in I.A. 2089/2006 in S.A. 77/2006 is under challenge. The prayer in the said I.A. is to condone the delay of 554 days in filing the Securitisation Application. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the Possession Notice dated 27.4.2005 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") and notice prior to sale dated 24.5.2005 issued under Rule 8(5) of the Rules respectively The securitisation application was filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')
2. The question considered by the Debts Recovery Tribunal Ernakulam is as to whether I.A.No. 2089 of 2006 in S.A. No. 77 of 2006, filed for condonation of delay in filing the Securitisation Application is allowable or not. The Tribunal held that there is no merit in the I.A and further held that it has no jurisdiction or power to condone the delay and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable . Consequently the Tribunal dismissed the said I.A.
3. The facts of the case in short is as follows: The petitioner who W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -2- is the title holder of 19 Ares and 95 Square meters of land, availed a loan of 15 lakhs from the 1st respondent. The loan was sanctioned as per the letter dated 25.6.2002 fixing the period of the loan repayment at 144 months and interest at 11% per annum. The petitioner created an equitable mortgage over the schedule property in favour of the 1st respondent. Since the instalments are not paid regularly the 2nd respondent issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act read with rule 9 of the Rules on 16.7.2004 calling upon the borrower/petitioner to repay the amount within 60 days, on failure, the possession of the property will be taken in exercise of the powers conferred on the 2nd respondent under 13(4) of the Act read with the rule 9 of the Rules.
4. Since the amounts demanded was not paid, the 2nd respondent took possession of the mortgaged property . Ext.P7 notice prior to sale, dated 24.5.2005, was issued by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submitted that the very existence of the building and value of the building was suppressed, that the notice has been issued in gross violation of the provisions and requirements of the Act and the Rules with the clear intention of the Recovery Manager to knock off the property in collusion with some real estate brokers close to him and to have illegal enrichment for themselves.
5. Petitioner issued a registered notice dated 4.6.2005 pointing out that the payments made by the petitioner had not been taken W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -3- into account and that the action taken by the 2nd respondent was in utter violation of all norms laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. Ext.P8 is the true copy of the said registered notice. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent proposed to sell the property at a reserve price of about 10 lakhs which is worth more than 40 lakhs and that the conduct reflects the fraudulent intentions of the respondents and their officers to make undue enruchment for themselves. The petitioner filed a suit as O.S. 880/2005 before the Musniff Court, Ernakulam praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents from selling the schedule property pursuant to the notice dated 24.5.2005 The respondents entered appearance and contended that the suit is barred under section 34 of the Act. It is submitted by the petitioner that he continued to remit the instalment amounts towards the discharge of the debt ever since the proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent The suit was subsequently dismissed for default.
6. The charged property was sold to the 3rd respondent for an amount of Rs.12,40,000/-. The petitioner filed the securitisation application No.77/2006 before the Tribunal. Ext.P11 is the copy of the said application filed under Section 17 of the Act . The time limit for filing the application is 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. The securitisation application was filed belatedly. Therefore I.A. 2089/2006 was filed for condoning the delay of W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -4- 554 days in filing the securitisation application . Ext.P12 is the copy of I.A No.2089 of 2006 in S.A. No. 77/2006.
7. On the question of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act , the Tribunal heard the counsel on both sides in detail. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Section 17 of the Act and Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act 1993, the Tribunal has jurisdiction and power to condone the delay and that the provisions of the Limitation Act has been made applicable to entertain the said I.A. by the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that when the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act are made fully applicable to the Debts Recovery Tribunal when considering an application under Section 17 of the Act ,necessarily all the powers granted to the Tribunal by the said Act, all provisions incorporated by reference shall also apply to the Tribunal exercising such jurisdiction and therefore the Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in filing the securitisation application. Based on the contention that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to the Tribunal it is also submitted that an application filed under Section 17 of the Act cannot be considered or treated as an original suit for the purpose of application of the Limitation Act .
8. The counsel for the respondents contended that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the securitisation application W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -5- filed under Section 17 of the Act . The Tribunal elaborately considered the provisions contained in the Act, Rules, Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act and the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court for deciding the sole question of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 17(1) of the Act reads as follows:
17. Right to appeal - (1) Any person (including borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, ( may make an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken:
Provided...........
Explanation............
9. Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act 1993 empowers a Bank or a Financial Institution to recover any debt from any person, by filing an application to the Tribunal concerned. Section 2(g) of the said act defines debt. It reads as follows:-
(2 (g)" debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or a financial institution or by a consortium of banks or financial institutions during the course of any business activity W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -6- undertaken by the bank or the financial institution or the consortium under any law for the time being in force, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil Court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of the application The same definition is made applicable to the Act.
10. An application under Section 19(1) of the recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 can be entertained by the Tribunal concerned only in respect of the liability which is legally recoverable on the date of application. Section 19 of the said Act enables banks and financial institutions to submit application for recovery of debts . It is to be noted that the creditor being a bank or a financial institution or a consoritum of the two, the liability may be in cash or otherwise; it may be secured or unsecured; it may be payable under a decree or order of any Civil Court or otherwise, the only rider being that the liability must be legally recoverable one.
11. To enforce payment of money secured by a mortgage or otherwise charged upon immovable property, Article 62 of the Limitation act , 1963 in the schedule relating to period of Limitation ,prescribes 12 years when the money sued for becomes due. Articles 19 to 22 also provides for enforcement of payment of money. In which the period prescribed is 3 years when the loan is made or cheque is paid or the W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -7- demand is made as the case may be.
12. So under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993, an application is entertainable only in case the Bank or the Financial Institution approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal within the period prescribed under the limitation Act. The Limitation Act prescribes the above said time limit for the abovesaid purpose . Section 5 of limitation Act has no application in filing application under Section 19 of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993. Section 17(1) of the Act prescribes the period of limitation for approaching the Tribunal having jurisdiction and to file an application . The prescribed period is 45 days from the date on which measures had been taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. Hence it is clear that for filing Section 19 application under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, the period of limitation is prescribed under Articles 62 and 19 to 22 as the case may be . The applications filed under Section 19 of the said Act and Section 17 of the Act are main applications in lieu of civil suit and are enabled with same object and reasons. Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to such matters.
13. Pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311 , the parliament amended the Act in the year 2004 with effect from 11.11.2004. W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -8- Subsequent to the amendment what is to be filed under Section 17(1) of the Act is not an 'appeal' but an 'application' By the amendment Parliament incorporated an explanation to Section 17(1) of the Act that communication of reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor shall not entitle the person including the borrower to make an application under Section 17(1) of the Act. Going by the amended section, the proceeding under Section 17 of the Act is not an appellate proceeding, but rather an initial action which is brought before a forum prescribed under the Act, and is like a suit under the Code of Civil procedure,1908, in the court of first instance and that as a matter of fact proceedings under Section 17 of the Act are in lieu of a civil suit which remedy is ordinarily available but for the bar under Section 34 of the Act. Section 17(4) application and application under Section 19(1) of The Recovery of Debts due to banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 are similar provisions in its non- applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
14. It was held by the Apex Court in Transcore Vs.Union of India & another 1 (2007) BC 33(SC) that the marginal note to S.17(1) cannot control the text and the content of Section 17(1) which states that the borrower aggrieved by any of the measures in Section 13(4) may make an application to the Debts recovery Tribunal, that going by the decision in Mardia Chemcials Ltd's case cited supra the Tribunal acts in an original W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -9- jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act and that the proviso to Section 17 (1) indicates that the Tribunal under Section 17(1) exercises original jurisdiction.
15. In the light of the dictums laid down by the Apex Court and the amendment made to the Act in the year 2004 it can be clearly seen that the S.A. filed by the petitioner is in lieu of a suit which could be filed before a regular civil court but for the bar under Section 34 of the Act which says that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken to or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act.
16. I may refer to Section 13(6) of the Act Section 13(6) reads as follows"
(6) Any transfer of secured asset after taking possession thereof or take over of management under Sub section (4), by the secured creditor or by the manager on behalf of the secured creditor shall vest in the transferee all rights in,or in relation to, the secured asset transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of such secured asset
17. It is to be noted in this context that if the dues of the secured creditor together with all costs, charges and expenses incurred W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -10- by him are tendered to the secured creditor at any time before the date fixed for sale or transfer, the secured asset shall not be sold or transferred by the secured creditor, and no further step shall be taken by him for transfer or sale of that secured asset. So it is clear that the title of the property vest with the transferee on or sale.
18. Rule 5 of the Rules reads as follows:
Before effecting sale of the immovable property referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9, the authorised officer shall obtain valuation of the property from an approved valuer and in consultation with the secured creditor, fix the reserve price of the property and may sell the whole or any part of such immovable secured asset by any of the following methods:-
(a) by obtaining quotations from the persons dealing with similar secured assets or otherwise interest in buying the such assets; or
(b) by inviting tenders from the public
(c) by holding public auction; or
(d) by private treaty.
19. The period of limitation in filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation cannot be restricted to any limited period if sufficient cause is shown for filing any appeal or any application belatedly and the court is bound to condone the delay; if the delay is short or long ,under Section 5 of the said Act. The court has power to condone the delay in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act even if the delay extend to several years provided, the applicant satisfies the court that he W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -11- had sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal or application within such period. Section 13(6) of the Act is specific to the effect that all rights in relation to the secured asset transferred shall vest with the transferee on transfer as if the transfer has been made by the owner of the secured asset. If so, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to a proceedings under Section 17(1) of the Act . If the time limit prescribed under Section 17(1) can be extended indefinitely by the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 13(6) will become nugatory and redundant.
20. Section 17(5) of the Act stipulates that the 17(1) application shall be disposed of within 60 days from the date of application. It further stipulates that the Tribunal may extend the period for reasons to be recorded in writing however the decision shall not exceed 4 months from the date of filing of the application under Section 17(1) . This provision is also mandatory which also leads to the conclusion that application under Section 17(1) shall be disposed of within 60 days and under no circumstances not to exceed 4 months . The said provisions also a pointer leads to the fact that section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application.
21. Section 24 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act 1993 provides that the provisions of the Limitations Act as far as may be apply to an application made to a W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -12- Tribunal. It means that the provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to original applications and interlocutory applications wherever applicable. The interlocutory applications filed in the main application i.e 17(1) application, such application can be entertained by the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act provided the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. Applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are maintainable in relation to interim application filed in the main/original application.
22. It is a settled principle of law that in the absence of an enabling provision to condone the delay there is no such thing as any inherent power of court to condone the delay in filing the proceedings before it The said question was considered by the Apex Court in Praksh.H. Jain Vs. Marie Fernandez (Ms) 2003 (5) SCC 431. The Apex court held that whether a statutory authority has power to condone the delay in filing statutory application, not only the nature and character of the authority as to whether it is a Court or not but also the nature of powers of the authority or Court, the extent thereof and the limitations thereon with particular reference to the legislative intent and the scheme of the enactment have to be taken into consideration and that in the absence of enabling provision there is no inherent power conferred on the W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -13- statutory authority or court to condone the delay in filing the proceedings before it The Apex court also held that the mere fact that such authority is deemed to be court only for limited and specific purposes, cannot make it a court for all or any other purpose and at any rate for the purpose of either making the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 attracted to proceedings before such competent authority or clothe such authority with any power to be exercised under the Limitation Act. The Apex court further held that such competent authority is merely and at best a statutory authority created for a definite purpose and to exercise , no doubt, powers in a quasi judicial manner but its powers are strictly circumscribed by the very statutory provisions which conferred upon it those powers and the same could be exercised in the manner provided therefor and subject to such conditions and limitations stipulated by the very provision of law under which the competent authority itself has been created. .
23. It is a settled position that the provisions of the Limitation are not applicable to proceedings before bodies other than courts, such as quasi judicial tribunal or an executive authority. The Apex court in Transcore's case cited Supra held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a creature of the statute and that it has no inherent power which exists in Civil courts.
24. Apart from the legal positions discussed above, I may refer W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -14- to Section 36 of the Act which clearly reveals that no secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under Section 13(4) of the Act unless his claim in respect of financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, . I have already referred to Articles 19 to 22 and 62 in the schedule of the Limitation Act. In Section 13(4) of the Act it is clear that a secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the measures stated therein only after the liability is due which is a legally recoverable liability within the meaning of debt as defined in 2(g) in the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act 1993.
25. There is no enabling provision in the Act or in The recovery of Debts due to banks and Financial Institutions Act to condone the delay in filing securitisation application under Section 17(1) of the Act and original application filed under Section 19(1) of the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act . In the absence of an enabling provision, a statutory authority created for a definite purpose and to exercise , powers in a quasi Judicial manner, circumscribed by the very statutory provisions which conferred upon it with limited powers to be exercised in the manner provided therein and subject to such conditions and limitations stipulated by the said statute, the Debts recovery Tribunal cannot apply Section 5 of the limitation Act to an original application. . 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -15- Tribunal committed gross error in assuming that the securitisation application is an original proceedings which is similar to an Original suit and hence Section 5 of the Limitation would not apply. According to him there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the Act or in the Rules to suggest that the legislature had intended at any point of time to treat an application under Section 17 of the Act as equivalent to an original suit for the purpose of application of the Limitation Act. The counsel also focussed the attention of this Court to the word "appeal" in Section 17 of the Act which according to him shows the intention of the parliament is not to treat the same as original suit The learned counsel further contended that even if the proceedings before the Tribunal is to be taken as an application in view of the specific provisions contained in the Act , the provisions of Section would apply to applications also.
27. The discussions as above leads to the conclusion that the provisions of limitation Act are applicable to the proceedings under the Act and the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall apply the provisions of the Limitation Act. The discussion further concludes that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under Act but is not applicable to the filing of an original application under Section 17(1) of the Act Yet for another reason also this writ petition is not maintainable The orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17(1) is appealable under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore the dismissal of the 17 W.P.(C) 22192 of 2007 -16- (1) application consequent on the dismissal of the delay condonation of the petition are matters to be agitated before the appellate tribunal .
28. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in UCO Bank Vs.Kanji Manji Kothari &Co 2008(3) Bombay C.R. 290 The Bombay High court held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to proceedings under Section 17(1) of Securitization Interest Act and Debts Recovery Tribunal could consider same. The said court further observed that while exercising these powers Debts Recovery Tribunal must bear in mind scheme of securitization Act and not allow any person to procrastinate proceedings by making frivolous applications. In view of the decisions of the Apex Court,discussed supra, I do not propose to follow the decision of the Bombay High Court.
In the result, this writ petition is devoid of any merits, hence dismissed.
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22192 of 2007
----------------------------
ORDER 1st November, 2009