SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT, 2002

Subject Matter : Registration of the company; Cancellation of such registration; Non-performing assets.
Relevant Section : Section 2(1)(o): "non-performing asset" means an asset or account of a borrower, which has been classified by a bank or financial institution as sub-standard, doubtful or loss asset.
Section 3: No securitisation company or reconstruction company shall commence or carry on the business of securitisation or asset reconstruction without- (a) obtaining a certificate of registration;
(b) having net owned fund of not less than two crore rupees as prescribed by RBI.
Section 4: (1) The Reserve Bank may cancel a certificate of registration granted under Section 3, if such company-
(a) ceases to carry on the business;
(b) ceases to receive or hold any investment from a qualified institutional buyer;
(c) has failed to comply with any conditions;
(d) fails to comply with any directions given by the RBI.
Key Issue : Whether amended definition of expression Non-Performing Asset (NPA) under Section 2(1)(o) of Act was constitutionally valid?
Citation Details : Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) (28.01.2015 - SC): MANU/SC/0073/2015
Summary Judgment :

Facts: Present appeals filed by various aggrieved parties, either borrowers or Secured Creditors for challenging constitutional validity of Section 2(1)(o) of Act pertaining to Non-Performing Assets.

Held: Submission that amendment of definition of expression 'NPA' under Section 2(1)(o) of Act was bad on account of excessive delegation of essential legislative function, was untenable and was required to be rejected. Another submission that by authorizing different Regulators to prescribe different norms for identification of NPA with reference to different Creditors amount to unreasonable classification was also required to be rejected for reason that all Creditors did not form uniform/homogenous class. Section 13 of Act obligated Secured Creditor to communicate reasons for non-acceptance of representation or objections to borrowers. Amended definition of expression "NPA" Under Section 2(1)(o) of Act was constitutionally valid. Another important aspect of the Act is that the activity of the Securitisation Companies (SC) and Reconstruction Companies (RC) are given a statutory recognition. Their activity is regulated Under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Under Section 3 such companies are required to be registered with the RBI. Such registration is liable for cancellation Under Section 4 on the happening of any one of the events specified therein. Section 5 confers statutory authority upon SCs and RCs to acquire the "financial assets"11 of any CREDITOR. Section 5(2)12 further provides that upon such acquisition of an asset, the SC or RC, as the case may be, steps into the shoes of the original SECURED CREDITOR from whom the asset is acquired.

Subject Matter : Acquisition of rights or interest in financial assets.
Relevant Section : Section 5: Emphasises on mode of transfer as permitted by this law should prevail over any other law. In addition, there is no bar on either a securitisation company or reconstruction company buying assets other than financial assets of banks or financial institutions-
(a) by issuance of debenture, bond or other security; or
(b) by entering into an agreement.
Section 13(2): If any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment, and his account in respect of such debt is classified by the secured creditor as non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower, by notice in writing, to discharge in full, his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice, failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under Section 13(4).
Key Issue : Whether the action taken by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Act is justified?
Citation Details : Allahabad Bank vs. Rajinder Mehra & Ors. (25.02.2011 - DRAT Delhi): MANU/DD/0119/2011
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The present appeal has been preferred against the order rendered by DRT-II wherein an application moved by Allahabad Bank for deletion of its name from the array of the parties was dismissed. According to Allahabad Bank it had assigned the debt in favour of the assignee M/s. IARC Pvt. Ltd. under the deed of assignment and the assignee company has already been impleaded as respondent. Counsel for the appellant argued that succinctly stated the debt stands transferred to M/s. IARC Pvt. Ltd. and it has ceased to be a necessary party.

Held: The bank assigned the loan to a ARC, but the borrower continued paying rent to the bank, also the action taken by the bank u/s 13(2) & 13(4) was questionable and the DRT (trial court) was yet to adjudicate. So, the DRAT dismissed the appeal of the Bank seeking deletion of its name from array of parties, which had cited Section 5(4) in seeking so. The same could not be done till the alternate remedy asked for by the borrower u/s 17(1) has been adjudicated upon. Thus, until then, both the assignor as well as the assignee were held to be necessary parties to this case.

Subject Matter : Offences and Penalties.
Relevant Section : Section 27: If a default is made--
(a) in filing the particulars of every transaction of any securitisation or asset reconstruction or security interest created;
(b) in sending the particulars of the modification; or
(c) in giving intimation to the Central Registrar of the payment in full by every company or the secured creditor, shall be punishable upto five thousand rupees per day during which the default continues.
Section 29: If any person contravenes or attempts or abets the contravention of the provisions or of any rules, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term upto one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 30: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 27 except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer of the Central Registry or an officer of the Reserve Bank authorised as such.
Key Issue : Whether the sale effected should be in consonance of Section 29?
Citation Details : Canara Bank vs. M. Amarender Reddy and Ors. (02.03.2017 - SC): MANU/SC/0271/2017
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The Appellant bank had provided financial assistance to one company/principal borrower. The Respondent 1(R1) was one of the two guarantors for the said loan transaction. The R1 had offered his immovable property as security. As the principal borrower committed default, the Appellant issued a demand notice u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Appellant then issued possession notice Under Section 13 (4) of 2002 Act. After taking symbolic possession of the secured asset, the upset price at Rs. 69,75,000/- thereof was determined and was accepted by the Appellant. A notice of sale was issued and was also given to the principal borrower and both the guarantors, to give them one last and final opportunity to discharge the debt within 30 days from the date of the said notice. A copy of e-auction notice was also enclosed indicating that the sale date was fixed as 21.11.2015. As per the e-auction notice, the auction was held on 21.11.2015. The property was sold to the highest bidder, for an amount of Rs. 73,25,000/-. The R1 filed petition before the High Court, for a declaration that the e-auction notice was illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the 2002 Act and Rules framed thereunder. The High Court took the view that it was imperative for the secured creditor to put the borrower on a notice of 30 days' duration about the intention to sell the secured asset and the mode of sale. This should precede the issuance of a public notice for sale. Hence, the present appeal.

Held: It is, therefore, imperative that for the sale to be effected Under Section 13(8), the procedure prescribed under Rule 8 read along with Rule 9(1) has to be necessarily followed, inasmuch as that is the prescription of the law for effecting the sale by referring to Sections 13(1), 13(8) and 37, read along with Section 29 and Rule 15. In the present case, as the public auction sale held on 21.11.2015 has not materialized, the Appellant may have to resort to a fresh public notice for sale of the secured asset of the Respondent No. 1, if the outstanding liability is still unpaid and the sale is to be effected either by inviting tenders from the public or by holding public auction.

Subject Matter : Offences and Penalties.
Relevant Section : Section 30: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 27 except upon a complaint in writing made by an officer of the Central Registry or an officer of the Reserve Bank, generally or specially authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Registrar or, as the case may be, the Reserve Bank.
Section 14: The secured creditor for the purpose of taking possession or control of any secured asset may request in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and they shall, on such request being made
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.
Key Issue : Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset u/s. 14 of the Act of 2002?
Citation Details : The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank vs. D. Visalakshi and Ors. (23.09.2019 - SC): MANU/SC/1303/2019
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The seminal question involved in present appeals is whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 . There are conflicting views of different High Courts on this question. The High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand have interpreted the said provision to mean that, only the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in metropolitan areas and the District Magistrate in non -metropolitan areas are competent to deal with such request. On the other hand, the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh have taken a contrary view of the same provision, to mean that it does not debar or preclude the CJM in the non metropolitan areas to exercise power under Section 14 of the 2002 Act.

Held: It is urged that taking any other view would require rewriting of Section 14 of the 2002 Act and in the process doing violence to the legislative intent. That must be eschewed. It is urged that in contradistinction to the expression used in Section 14 "CMM" and "DM", Section 30 of the same Act (2002 Act) refers to the authority as "Metropolitan Magistrate" or a "Judicial Magistrate", as the case may be for taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Act. The CJM is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the 2002 Act. Accordingly, view taken by the High Courts of Kerala, Karnataka, Allahabad and Andhra Pradesh is upheld and decisions of the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand in that regard is reversed.

Subject Matter : Jurisdiction
Relevant Section : Section 34: 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 this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).
Section 35: The provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect over other laws in any inconsistence between them.
Section 17(1): Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer 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 measure had been taken.
Key Issue : Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of Section 34 r/w. Section 13(2) of the Act?
Citation Details : State Bank of Patiala vs. Mukesh Jain and Ors. (08.11.2016 - SC): MANU/SC/1436/2016
Summary Judgment :

Facts: The Appellant is a nationalized bank which had lent Rs. 8,00,000/- to R1 by way of a term loan on certain conditions and so as to secure the said debt, R1 debtor had mortgaged his immovable property forming part of premises. As R1 committed default in re-payment of the said loan, the Appellant initiated proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. When notice u/s.13(2) of the Act had been issued and further proceedings were sought to be initiated by the Appellant against R1, the said proceedings had been challenged by R1 by filing civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi, the said suit is rejected by the trial court. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the said application, the Appellant filed Civil Revision Petition in the High Court of Delhi. The said petition was also rejected and being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant.

Held: The application submitted by the Appellant bank Under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure should have been granted by the trial Court as, according to Section 34 of the Act, a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal arising under the Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the DRT Act has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as per Section 17 of the Act even if the amount involved is less than Rs. 10 lakh. But, the said appellate jurisdiction need not be misunderstood with the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal. For the aforestated reasons, the impugned judgment as well as the order rejecting the application filed Under Order VII Rule 11 are set aside.

Subject Matter : Jurisdiction
Relevant Section : Section 34: 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 this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).
Section 35: The provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect over other laws in any inconsistence between them.
Section 17(1): Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer 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 measure had been taken.
Key Issue : a. Whether there is a bar on jurisdiction of the High Court as a Company Court to grant relief in the light of Sections 34 and 35 of the SARFAESI Act?
b. Whether the Banks could choose to stand outside the winding up, in seeking to enforce the security assets and simultaneously prefer a Company Petition seeking for winding up of the Company in respect of the balance debt not covered by such security?
Citation Details : Kingfisher Airlines Limited vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (11.12.2013 - KARHC): MANU/KA/3387/2013
Summary Judgment :

Facts: State Bank of India leading a consortium of banks (Repsondent Banks) filed an application under S.14 of SARFAESI Act contending that they were entitled to take physical possession of a building in Mumbai named Kingfisher House, a property which was mortgaged by Kingfisher Airlines Limited in favour of the consortium. Kingfisher Airlines Limited holds that a large number of petitions for winding up of the Company is pending before this court (High Court) and if the earliest of these petitions is admitted, then the assets would come under the jurisdiction of this court. Hence the Company filed the Application to direct the Respondent Bank(s) not to proceed with the Application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the CMM Court and for a direction that physical possession of the secured asset shall not been taken in undue haste. The said Application was filed contending that by invoking the jurisdiction of the this Court for winding up, the Banks are deemed to have relinquished and surrendered all security interest and therefore seeking to invoke Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act after filing the Petition for winding up is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. Further the proceedings under SARFAESI may jeopardize the interests of a large number of creditors, employees, shareholders and the company as well.

Held: A plain reading of Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act would indicate that the jurisdiction of all civil courts is barred and no injunction can be granted by any Court in respect of any action taken or to be taken pursuant to SARFAESI Act. Such bar would apply to Company Court as well. Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act declares that the provisions of the Act would prevail over other laws notwithstanding anything inconsistent therein. Though Section 446 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides that the Company Court shall have absolute jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of any suit or proceedings notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, this provision is applicable to a post winding up order. That apart, the non obstante clause contained in the subsequent enactment would normally prevail. Therefore, it was held that the Karnataka High Court as a Company Court did not have jurisdiction to interfere. A secured creditor can choose to stand outside the winding up and yet simultaneously prefer a company petition and also that the Company Court could not exercise jurisdiction over the property when recourse is sought to be taken against the secured asset by a secured creditor under SARFAESI Act.

Subject Matter : Jurisdiction
Relevant Section : Section 34: 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 this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993).
Section 35: The provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect over other laws in any inconsistence between them.
Section 17(1): Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer 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 measure had been taken.
Key Issue : a. Whether the lower court’s rejection of the plaint was justified?
b. Whether the suit appears to be barred by any law?
Citation Details : Atheeqa Begum vs. Indian bank and Ors. (22.11.2013 – KARHC): MANU/KA/3919/2013
Summary Judgment :

Facts: X, the plaintiff is the sister of Y. Z is the son of Y. According to X, her mother had gifted her half share in a suit property through an oral gift in 11.3.1982 and since then X has been the absolute owner. X handed over the property to Y under the bona fide intention that Y would look after the property in the best interest of X. Y however claims that their mother executed a trust deed on the property on 5.2.1983 in favour of Z, the beneficiary. Y is the trustee of the property. Y availed loan from Indian Bank on strength of the suit property. Upon default in repayment of loan, the Defendant invoked provisions of SARFAESI Act 2002 and thus took over the possession of the suit property. X claims that the possession by the Bank should be withdrawn and that the trust deed does not bind her. The Bank denies the averment by X regarding the gift. The Bank further claimed that the suit is not maintainable and is expressly barred under s.17 and s.34 of the Act. At this stage, an application was also filed with under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC by the Plaintiff seeking direction against the Defendant for withdrawl of possession notice (the main relief) along with other reliefs. The civil court rejected the plaint stating jurisdiction of civil court is barred and hence the present appeal.

Held: Taking over of the possession of the suit property is one of the coercive steps undertaken by the Defendant under s. 13(4). The fact that such steps were taken by the Bank is evident from the statements and documents provided by the Plaintiff in her plaint. The Plaintiff, who is the aggrieved party in this case, would then have only a specific remedy as provided under S.17 of the SARFAESI Act. Upon conjoint reading of S.17 and S.34, it is clear that there is a statutory bar on Civil Court to try cases in which action under SARFAESI Act has already been taken or are to be initiated. The Civil Court thus cannot impose an injunction. Further, the High Court upheld that the decision of the Civil Court was right in rejecting the plaint.

Subject Matter : Rights & Liabilities of Borrower
Relevant Section : Section 13(3A): On receipt of the notice under Section 13(2), if the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate within fifteen days of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection to the borrower:
Exception: The reasons so communicated by the secured creditor shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Section 13(2): Where any borrower, who is under a liability to a secured creditor under a security agreement, makes any default in repayment of secured debt or any installment thereof, and the secured creditor declares it as a non-performing asset, then, the secured creditor may require the borrower by notice in writing to discharge in full his liabilities to the secured creditor within sixty days from the date of notice failing which the secured creditor shall be entitled to exercise all or any of his rights under the Act.
Exception: (i) the requirement of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities; and
(ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to enforce security interest in accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents executed in favour of the debenture trustee
Key Issue : a. Whether Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 mandatory or directory in nature?
b. Whether sufficient opportunity and time was granted to the debtor to repay the debt without any avail?
Citation Details : ITC Limited vs. Blue Coast Hotels Ltd. and Ors. (19.03.2018 - SC): MANU/SC/0263/2018
Summary Judgment :

Facts: Industrial Financial Corporation of India (IFCI), (the creditor), in the capacity of a financial institution entered into a corporate loan agreement with Blue Coast Hotels (hereinafter 'the debtor') for a sum of Rs. 150 crores. The agreement included a creation of a special mortgage to secure the corporate loan. The mortgaged property comprised of the whole of the debtor's hotel property-including the agricultural land on which the debtor was to develop villas. The debtor defaulted in repayment of the loan and the debtor's account became a Non-Performing Asset (NPA). A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was sent by the creditor calling upon the debtor to pay the amount overdue. After various rounds of litigation the creditor auctioned the mortgaged property in order to recover the debt amount. An appeal was preferred wherein the High Court held entire proceedings for recovery and sale of the hotel to be illegal being in violation of the Act. Aggrieved by, present appeal was preferred.

Held: The language of Sub-section (3A) to be clearly impulsive. The word 'shall' invariably raise a presumption that the particular provision is imperative. There is nothing in the legislative scheme of Section 13(3A) which requires the Court to consider whether or not, the word 'shall' is to be treated as directory in the provision. Under Section 13(2) and after the debtor's letter of representation many opportunities were granted by the creditor to the debtor to repay the debt which were all met by proposals for extension of time. Eventually, the debtor even executed "A Letter of Undertaking" acknowledging the right of IFCI to sell the assets in the case of default.
Non-compliance of Sub-section (3A) of Section 13 cannot be of any avail to the debtor whose conduct has been merely to seek time and not repay the loan as promised on several occasions. the judgment of the High Court is set aside and direct the debtor and its agents to handover possession of the mortgaged properties to the auction purchaser within a period of six months from the date of this judgment along with the relevant accounts.

Subject Matter : Rights & Liabilities of Creditor
Relevant Section : Section 13(4): Provides for the measures that can be taken by the secured creditor to recover his secured debt from the Borrower.
Section 17(1): Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer 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 measure had been taken.
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002
Rule 8: Provides for sale of immovable secured asset and
Rule 9 provides for time of sale, issue of sale certificate and delivery of possession of the immovable secured asset.
Key Issue : Whether High Court was justified in holding that remedy of Appellant lied in challenging action of Respondent in forfeiting deposit by filing application under Section 17 of Act before DRT?
Citation Details : Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (27.11.2017 - SC): MANU/SC/1494/2017
Summary Judgment :

Facts: Respondent-Punjab National Bank had given loan facility to a Company called "M/s. India Iron & Steel Corporation Limited". To secure the loan amount, the Borrower had secured their assets, which consisted of the land, factory building, plant and machinery situated at Dhampur. The Borrower, however, failed to clear their loan amount and became a defaulter in its repayment. The PNB, therefore, invoked their powers Under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and issued a public sale notice in leading English newspapers for sale of the mortgaged assets of the Borrower in the public auction. The Appellant, herein, was the bidder who failed to pay the regular installments towards sale money in terms of memorandum of understanding to Respondent. Dispute arose between Appellant and Respondent before Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) wherein an order was passed directing the Appellant not to remove any material from the factory premises. That led the Respondent to forfeit the Appellant's deposit which was challenged in High Court. High Court dismissed the Appellant's petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy to the Appellant of filing the application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act before DRT to challenge the action of Respondent in forfeiting the deposit money of the Appellant. Hence, present appeal was filed by Appellant.

Held: An action of Respondent in forfeiting the deposit made by Appellant was part of the measures taken by Respondent under Section 13(4). Measures taken under Section 13 (4) would not be completed unless the entire procedure laid down in Rules 8 and 9 for sale of secured assets was fully complied with by the Respondent. Tribunal had been empowered by Section 17(2),(3) and (4) to examine all the steps taken by Respondent with a view to find out as to whether the sale of secured assets was made in conformity with the requirements contained in Section 13(4) read with the Rules or not. The expression "any of the measures referred to in Section 13(4) taken by Respondent in Section 17(1) would include all actions taken by Respondent under the Rules which relate to the measures specified in Section 13(4). Appellant was aggrieved by the action of Respondent in forfeiting their money. The Appellant falls within the expression "any person" as specified under Section 17(1) and hence was entitled to challenge the action of Respondent before DRT by filing an application under Section 17(1) of Act. Lower Court was justified in dismissing the Appellant's petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 17(1) of Act before the concerned Tribunal to challenge the action of Respondent in forfeiting the Appellant's deposit under Rule 9(5). The Appellant is, accordingly, granted liberty to file an application before the concerned Tribunal (DRT) Under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which has jurisdiction to entertain such application within 45 days from the date of this order.