MS KARTIK CORPORATION vs BAJAJ FINANCE LIMITED on 8 November 2019

CONTD. ORDER-SHEET

PAGE NO. ....11.....

CASE NO. ...M.A. (A)-31/19

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="51 76 224 98">DATE</th><th data-bbox="224 76 771 98">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="771 76 947 98">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="51 103 224 125">08.11.2019</td><td data-bbox="224 103 771 125"><u>Exh-12</u> M.A. No.31/19</td><td data-bbox="771 103 947 125"></td></tr><tr><td data-bbox="51 135 224 157">Present :</td><td data-bbox="224 135 771 942"><p>Mr. Ritesh Patadia, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant<br/>Mr. R.D. Shah, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent<br/>Financial Institution</p><p>Respondent financial institution has filed reply to the condonation application. With consent of both the Ld. Counsels for the parties case is taken up for hearing.</p><p>While arguing the case, Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in this case bank has initiated Securitisation process in three loan accounts, wherein for personal loan there is no mortgage in favour of respondent financial institution. Due to some personal disputes applicants could file the Securitisation Application within limitation and there is only 37 days delay, which may be condoned.</p><p>Ld. Counsel for the respondent financial institution submitted that as per the agreement respondent financial institution can club all the loans and on that account there is no irregularity in SARFAESI process and if respondent financial institution proceeded for enforcement of security interest for all the three loans at this stage applicant cannot challenge the same. He further submitted that the applicant has failed to explain the delay and as such delay condonation merits dismissal.</p><p>In rebuttal Ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that in fact financial institution has clubbed all the three accounts to bring the claim above Rs.1,00,00,000/- to initiate securitisation process in terms of RBI guidelines, otherwise respondent financial institution cannot initiate securitisation process because amount due was below Rs.1,00,00,000/-.</p><p>I have considered rival contentions of both parties. In this case admittedly there is delay of 37 days and further applicant has raised vital issue whether respondent financial institution can proceed under Securitisation Act for recovery of personal loan, which is not secured by immovable property and intends to enforce under Securitisation Act.</p><p>Considering the vital issue, I feel fair to condone the delay in filing of this Securitisation Application subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with National Defence Fund in the</p></td><td data-bbox="771 135 947 942"></td></tr></tbody></table>

CONTD. ORDER-SHEET

PAGE NO. ....12.....

CASE NO. M.A. 61-31/19

<table border="1"><thead><tr><th data-bbox="48 74 221 98">DATE</th><th data-bbox="221 74 768 98">DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER</th><th data-bbox="768 74 943 98">REMARK</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td data-bbox="48 98 221 943"></td><td data-bbox="221 98 768 943"><p>Account No. 11084239799 State Bank of India at New Delhi Main Branch (00691).</p><p>If the applicant produces proof of deposit of cost within 7 days, Registry will put up this file as Securitisation Application after its registration within two working days. Failing which the order of delay of condonation would not be operative and application will be deemed to be dismissed for the want of deposit of cost.</p><p>(VINAY GOEL)<br/>PRESIDING OFFICER<br/>DRT-I, AHMEDABAD</p></td><td data-bbox="768 98 943 943"></td></tr></tbody></table>