: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3186 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.3186 OF 200 WRIT PETITION NO.3186 OF 2006 Sunorange Enterprises ...Petitioner. Sunorange Enterprises ...Petitioner. Sunorange Enterprises ...Petitioner. V/s. V/s. V/s. The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pune & 4 Ors. ...Respondents. & 4 Ors. ...Respondents. & 4 Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Nilesh Pawaskar with Ms.Aparna Vhatkar for the Mr.Nilesh Pawaskar with Ms.Aparna Vhatkar for the Mr.Nilesh Pawaskar with Ms.Aparna Vhatkar for the Petitioner. Petitioner. Petitioner. Ms.Sarita D’Lima for the Respondent No.1. Ms.Sarita D’Lima for the Respondent No.1. Ms.Sarita D’Lima for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Rajesh R.Mishra for the Respondent No.5. Mr.Rajesh R.Mishra for the Respondent No.5. Mr.Rajesh R.Mishra for the Respondent No.5. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 5th December, 2006. DATE : 5th December, 2006. DATE : 5th December, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This petition was heard from time to time and 1. This petition was heard from time to time and 1. This petition was heard from time to time and when Mr.Bhange appeared before us on behalf of the when Mr.Bhange appeared before us on behalf of the when Mr.Bhange appeared before us on behalf of the petitioner on 17-11-2006, it was made clear that the petitioner on 17-11-2006, it was made clear that the petitioner on 17-11-2006, it was made clear that the challenge to the impugned order passed by the lower challenge to the impugned order passed by the lower challenge to the impugned order passed by the lower appellate tribunal was devoid of merits and it was also appellate tribunal was devoid of merits and it was also appellate tribunal was devoid of merits and it was also pointed out to us by the said learned counsel that the pointed out to us by the said learned counsel that the pointed out to us by the said learned counsel that the property attached was also auctioned. Subsequently, the property attached was also auctioned. Subsequently, the property attached was also auctioned. Subsequently, the petitioner is appearing before us through another petitioner is appearing before us through another petitioner is appearing before us through another learned counsel today and prayer is made before us to learned counsel today and prayer is made before us to learned counsel today and prayer is made before us to grant time for seeking amendments so as to get the grant time for seeking amendments so as to get the grant time for seeking amendments so as to get the matter remanded to the lower appellate tribunal. We are matter remanded to the lower appellate tribunal. We are matter remanded to the lower appellate tribunal. We are not in favour of adjourning the petition and more so not in favour of adjourning the petition and more so not in favour of adjourning the petition and more so having heard the petition at length atleast on two having heard the petition at length atleast on two having heard the petition at length atleast on two occasions. occasions. occasions. : 2 : 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed on 20-12-04 by the learned Presiding and order passed on 20-12-04 by the learned Presiding and order passed on 20-12-04 by the learned Presiding Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Pune in Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Pune in Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Pune in M.A.No.137 of 2004 had approached the Appellate Tribunal M.A.No.137 of 2004 had approached the Appellate Tribunal M.A.No.137 of 2004 had approached the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.37 of 2005 and the order passed by the Debt in Appeal No.37 of 2005 and the order passed by the Debt in Appeal No.37 of 2005 and the order passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was in application/appeal Recovery Appellate Tribunal was in application/appeal Recovery Appellate Tribunal was in application/appeal filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short, the Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short, the Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short, the ’Securitisation Act’). ’Securitisation Act’). ’Securitisation Act’). 3. Before the Tribunal, two main issues were 3. Before the Tribunal, two main issues were 3. Before the Tribunal, two main issues were re-agitated, namely, (1)-delay condonation and (2)-locus re-agitated, namely, (1)-delay condonation and (2)-locus re-agitated, namely, (1)-delay condonation and (2)-locus standi. standi. standi. 4. On the point of limitation, the Appellate 4. On the point of limitation, the Appellate 4. On the point of limitation, the Appellate Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India India India 2004(5) ALL MR SC 484 and held that the and held that the and held that the proceedings filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation proceedings filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation proceedings filed under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act are in the nature of original proceedings and though Act are in the nature of original proceedings and though Act are in the nature of original proceedings and though referred to as " Appeal", it has to be treated as an referred to as " Appeal", it has to be treated as an referred to as " Appeal", it has to be treated as an application and consequently, Section 5 of the application and consequently, Section 5 of the application and consequently, Section 5 of the : 3 : Limitations Act would not be applicable to the Limitations Act would not be applicable to the Limitations Act would not be applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act. Securitisation Act. Securitisation Act. 5. It was argued before us that the judgment of 5. It was argued before us that the judgment of 5. It was argued before us that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals the Supreme Court in the case of Mardia Chemicals Limited (Supra) was obiter dicta. We have gone through Limited (Supra) was obiter dicta. We have gone through Limited (Supra) was obiter dicta. We have gone through the said judgment and we agree with the Tribunal that it the said judgment and we agree with the Tribunal that it the said judgment and we agree with the Tribunal that it has been held that the proceeding under Section 17 of has been held that the proceeding under Section 17 of has been held that the proceeding under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act are not in the nature of appeal the Securitisation Act are not in the nature of appeal the Securitisation Act are not in the nature of appeal proceedings in the strict sense and, therefore, the proceedings in the strict sense and, therefore, the proceedings in the strict sense and, therefore, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable. On the second issue even if we hold in be applicable. On the second issue even if we hold in be applicable. On the second issue even if we hold in favour of the petitioner, it really has no consequence favour of the petitioner, it really has no consequence favour of the petitioner, it really has no consequence because the proceedings taken out before the Debt because the proceedings taken out before the Debt because the proceedings taken out before the Debt Recovery Tribunal were hit by limitation and on that Recovery Tribunal were hit by limitation and on that Recovery Tribunal were hit by limitation and on that sole ground itself findings recorded by both the forums sole ground itself findings recorded by both the forums sole ground itself findings recorded by both the forums will have to be confirmed. will have to be confirmed. will have to be confirmed. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)