Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MANISH SUHALKA vs VASTU HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED on 27 March 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI (ADDITIONAL CHARGE , DRAT-DELHI)**
**Appeal (EDRAT) No.360/2026** (Arising out of S.A. No.465/2025 (DRT, Jaipur)
**Manish Suhalka vs. Vastu Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.**
**27/03/2026**
Mr. Akhil Solanki, Ld. counsel appeared for appellants through VC.
Mr. Vineet Sharma, Ld. counsel appeared for respondent FI through VC
**I.A. No.362/2026**
This application is filed to condone the delay of 202 days in filing this appeal.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner/appellant submitted that the petitioner had filed S.A. No.465/2025 against the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and for other reliefs. Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur dismissed the Securitization Application on the ground that it was not filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, petitioner has now come up with this appeal along with application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Spl. Writ No.903/2025 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court had granted one month time from the date of the order on 23.01.2026 to obtain stay order from this Tribunal. Thereafter, this appeal is filed on 26.02.2026. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Ld. Counsel seeks condonation of delay of 202 days in filing the appeal.
In reply, the Ld. counsel for the respondent FI submitted that the petitioner/appellant had not challenged the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act, in the D.B. Spl. Writ No.903/2025, but that appeal was filed against a Single Bench order dated 04.07.2025 dismissing petitioner/appellant's S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10321/2025. The Sd/- Hon'ble High Court had not directed that the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition be exempted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act while computing the limitation for filing the appeal. This appeal is not filed within 15 days granted by the Hon'ble High Court.
Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
As rightly pointed out by the Ld. counsel for the respondent, perusal of records shows that D.B. Spl. Appeal (Writ) No.903/2025 in which the order dated 23.01.2026 was passed was against an order dated 04.07.2025 in the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10321/2025. There is no direction for exempting the period spent in the said proceedings while computing the limitation period. This appeal is filed against the order dated 18.07.2025 passed in the Securitization Application (S.A.) No.465/2025. Admittedly, the said S.A. was dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, recently, in re, **The Property Company (P) Ltd. vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda**, Civil Appeal No.92/2026 decided on 07.01.2026, held that the Tribunals are not empowered to condone the delay in filing the application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act.
The impugned order was passed on 18.07.2025 and this appeal against that order is filed on 26.02.2026 with 202 days delay. The delay is huge. Therefore, this Tribunal finds no sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay in filing this appeal.
Therefore, I.A. No.362/2026 filed to condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal is dismissed.
Consequently, other applications and appeal are rejected.
File be consigned to record room.
Sd/-
Chairperson DRAT, Chennai Additional Charge, DRAT, Delhi
-pk