Patna HC Won’t Rule On Bank’s 2,080-Day Delay Challenge, As Its Appeal Against DRT’s Ruling For Borrower Is Pending

The Bank challenged the DRT, Patna’s order dated 9 September 2022 condoning a 2,080-day delay in Respondent No. 1’s securitisation application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

The DRAT had directed the Bank to seek appropriate relief before the DRT.

While the writ petition was pending, the DRT decided the securitisation application on 14 February 2023 in Respondent No. 1’s favour.

The Bank appealed that final order to the DRAT, where it raised, among other matters, the limitation issue.

The Bank nevertheless pursued this writ petition challenging the delay-condonation order and the DRAT’s earlier order

Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides the remedy before the DRT against measures taken under the Act, while Section 18 provides an appellate remedy before the DRAT

The Court applied the principles that a writ court may decline to entertain a petition where the petitioner is already pursuing an available statutory remedy, and that parallel proceedings concerning the same dispute are inappropriate

It did not decide the substantive question whether the DRT could condone the delay or whether the delay was properly condoned.

By the time the writ petition was considered, the DRT had disposed of the underlying securitisation application, and the Bank had challenged that final decision before the DRAT.

The limitation question raised in the writ petition was also before the DRAT in that appeal.

In those circumstances, the Court considered the writ petition both overtaken by the final disposal of the securitisation application and inappropriate to pursue alongside the statutory appeal.

It therefore declined to examine the merits, leaving those questions for the DRAT

It expressly stated that it had made no determination on the merits of the pending appeal and directed that the DRAT decide it in accordance with law