Article 227 revision is not maintainable where a Section 18 SARFAESI appeal is available.

The petitioner challenged the DRT, Madurai’s order dated 5 February 2021 rejecting, as time-barred, its application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act challenging a sale certificate issued to respondents 2–5.

It argued that the DRT should have numbered the application and allowed it an opportunity to seek condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; it also relied on authorities concerning the sale procedure and the maintainability of constitutional proceedings.

The petitioner filed this revision under Article 227 rather than an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

Whether a revision under Article 227 should be entertained against the DRT’s order rejecting a Section 17 application as time-barred when an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is available.

Whether the High Court should determine the petitioner’s submissions concerning condonation of delay and compliance with the sale procedure, or leave those matters to the statutory appellate forum.

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides a 45-day period for an application challenging measures taken under the Act; an order made by the DRT under Section 17 may be appealed to the DRAT under Section 18 within 30 days of receipt.

The Court applied the principle that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a constitutional petition where an effective alternative remedy is available, relying on United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported as 2010 5 L.W. 193.

The Court also noted that the petitioner had been heard by the DRT and found no violation of natural justice.

The authorities cited by the petitioner concerning Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the sale process were not decided on their merits.

The DRT had heard the petitioner before rejecting its application on limitation, and the petitioner therefore had an available statutory appeal under Section 18.

As there was no breach of natural justice and an effective appellate remedy existed, the Court declined to examine the petitioner’s arguments about condonation or the sale procedure in this Article 227 revision.

It expressed no view on whether the petitioner could still challenge the sale, noting the bank’s submission that possession had been delivered to the auction purchasers.

It dismissed the revision without costs and granted the petitioner liberty, if so advised, to approach the appropriate appellate forum.