PNP 1 WP8260-17.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8260 OF 2011 Maganlal Ramkishan Singh and others ..Petitioners. versus Raksha Kirit Gosher and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Sunil Kharwal with Mr. Ranvir Shekhawat for the Petitioners. Ms. Mamta Sadh with Mr. Vivek Phadke i/b Kaikini Phadke & Associates for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sudhakar Koli, Assistant Manager and Representative of Respondent No.2 present in person. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 17 October 2011. P.C. : 1. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal has by its judgment allowed an appeal against an order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was barred by limitation. That finding has been held to be incorrect by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. 2. In the present case, the admitted facts are that the possession of the secured asset was taken by the bank under Section 13(4) on 23 January 2007. The application under Section 17 was filed on 8 March 2007. The limitation under sub section (1) of Section 17 for PNP 2 WP8260-17.10.sxw filing an application is forty five days from the date on which a measure has been taken under Section 13(4). Since that measure was taken on 23 January 2007 when actual possession was taken, the application under Section 17 was well within the limitation of forty five days. The fact that symbolic possession was taken earlier on 23 March 2005 does not detract from this position. As observed by the Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank v. M/s. Ashok Saw Mill1, the action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and can not only be set aside, but even the status quo ante can be restored by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Hence, the application under Section 17 which was filed within a period of forty five days of actual physical possession of the secured asset being taken, which is the measure referred to in Section 13(4) was within time. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was justified in that view. No case for interference is made. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that his client is the auction purchaser who has paid the entire money in March 2007. Having regard to this factual position, we would request the Debts Recovery Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the application and to endeavour to do so within a period of one month from the date on which an authenticated copy of this order is placed before the Tribunal. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.) 1 AIR 2009 SC 2420.