Swaminarayan Corporation and Ors Anand vs KALUPUR COMMERCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK on 20 January 2026

**ORDER**

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsels for the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.59/2016 moved by Applicants for condoning delay of 10 years and 3 months in filing Securitization Application have been heard.

2. 2. It is case of the Applicants that the Respondent Bank has no authority to invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act because it is a Co-operative Bank. In support of their contentions, the Applicants have relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of **Shri Dhakdi Group Co-operative Cotton Seed & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.** The Applicants have further stated in their application that due to adverse financial condition, they could not manage for the funds to file

SA against the measures taken by the Respondent Bank. Therefore, the Applicants were precluded for reasons beyond their control to object against the measures of the Respondent Bank. Hence, the Applicants have prayed for Condonation of the aforesaid delay in the interest of justice.

1. 3. Respondent No.1 Bank has filed its reply vide Ex.R/6 and denied the statements and averments made by the Applicants in the application. It has further contended that Respondent No.1 Bank had taken steps under the provisions of SARFAESI Act more than 10 years ago and registered Sale Deed has been executed on 17.02.2006 in favour of the Auction Purchaser. The entire process of sale of the secured asset has been concluded and therefore, the Applicants are not going to be benefitted by challenging the measures of the Respondent Bank. It is also stated that the delay is absolutely unexplained and the Applicants have not given sufficient or genuine reason for condoning a huge delay. Accordingly, Respondent Bank has prayed dismissal of the present application.

2. 4. Respondent No.2-Auction Purchaser has filed his reply vide Ex.R/8 and has also denied the statements and averments made by the Applicants in the application. He has further contended that the delay should not be condoned in a case when there is no sufficient reason explained by the litigant. Therefore, Respondent No.2 has also prayed for dismissal of the present application.

3. 5. Over and above the oral arguments of the parties, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Bank has filed his Written Submissions vide Ex.R/11 along with certain judgments, which shall be considered during the course of this judgment hereinafter.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Applicants have shown the following reasons for delay in filing SA against the measures of the Respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act:

*"5. It is stated that the applicants at that point of time was passing from very difficult condition due to paucity of funds. The business is ruined and the applicants have no other option of leave the said area in search of some lively hood in other cities to maintain their families. The applicants remain out of the said place of many years and ultimately after a great passage of time, they are able to earn enough amount (though very marginal) to sustain their family. During those periods they were in very devastated condition and survival is difficult for them. They have no news of anything that happened for their property and alleged recovery measures of the Respondent Bank. Hence the miseries of the applicants were of such a nature that they were precluded for reasons beyond their control to object the said measures of the respondent.*

*6. The applicants have since last one year resume normalcy to their living in their village i. e. at Tarapur, Moraj. The applicants have inquired about the facilities and recovery action of the Respondent Bank and also one Tarapur Coop Bank. At that time, they come to the alleged measure of sale of Respondent Bank.*

*7. The applicants state that looking to the above situation which they have described in this delay condonation application, they want to avail their legal remedy if the Hon'ble Tribunal finds the reason of delay condonation as reasonable one. Though there is a large delay in preferring the said application, but the facts that is true is narrated. The survival of applicants and fulfillment of their family's basic requirement is a big question form them to which they have to give utmost priority. Under this situation a normal human being like applicants could not pay proper attention to the challenge of measures of recovery of Respondent Bank. It is stated that if the measures itself is nullity in the eye of law, then challenge to the same may not be denied for the reason of delay."*

7. Considering the above averments made by the Applicants for seeking Condonation of huge Delay of more than 10 years, it becomes clear that due to paucity of funds, they were not able to file SA within the prescribed time limit. It may be noted that the Respondent Bank initiated actions under

SARFAESI Act by issuing notice u/s 13(2) on 29.08.2003. Thereafter, the Respondent Bank also took possession of disputed property on 06.12.2004 and the Respondent Bank ultimately sold the property by way of auction and executed Deed of Conveyance in favour of Auction Purchaser on 17.02.2006. After conclusion of the entire sale process of the secured asset, the Applicants filed the present Securitization Application along with Application for Condonation of Delay, after the long period of 10 years.

1. 8. In the above circumstances, it is required to be noted that the SARFAESI Act and Recovery measures taken by the Bank under the said Act are intended to be expeditious and time-bound. This Tribunal is of the opinion that the statutory time provided in Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act cannot be extended or ignored unless the Statute itself permits condonation. There is no express power of this Tribunal in Section 17 for condoning delay. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants has vehemently argued that the Applicants have a good meritorious case in their favour and they are likely to succeed in the SA. However, this Tribunal is not in a position to accept the said argument as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and other DRATs / High Courts have settled the legal position on the question of condoning delay in filing the SA u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act and have held from time to time that merits alone cannot justify the Condonation of Delay. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the strong merits alone are legally irrelevant for condoning a huge delay for more than 10 years in filing SA. It may be further observed that merits can supplement, but cannot replace the legally acceptable explanation for delay.

2. 9. This Tribunal is supported in its aforesaid view by the observations of Hon'ble **High Court of Gujarat made in the case of Gitaben Manharlal Pujara vs. Haresh Bipinchandra Pathak & Anr. 1999(1) GCD 16 (Guj)**. It has been held therein as under:

*"The appeal has to be presented by the aggrieved party within the prescribed period of limitation and in case where it is not presented within limitation, it shall be accompanied by an application supported by affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relies to satisfy the Court that he/she/it had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of the limitation, so the satisfaction of the Court on the facts set forth in the application supported by the affidavit that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in the prescribed period of limitation is sine qua non for condonation of delay which has been caused in filing of the appeal Delay caused in filing of appeal cannot be condoned more so when there is long delay of 576 days merely on sympathies or on consideration of economic constraints and financial difficulties of the applicant-appellant or merely on asking or desire. In the absence of specific, definite and clear facts pleaded in application and supported by the affidavit by which the applicant was prevented from filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and how he/she/it has overcome to constraints and conditions it is difficult for the Court to accept the case of the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal. While considering application of the applicant-appellant for condonation of delay caused in preferring the appeal the Court has to keep in mind also that by not preferring the appeal by the aggrieved party in limitation a valuable right is accrued to the opposite party. more so when delay is of considerable long period. Each day delay cause in preferring appeal may not be required to be explained. But where on the facts set forth in the application supported by the affidavit the Court is satisfied that the applicant-appellant had no cause much less sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within prescribed period of limitation it may not condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal. The explanation for the delay must be reasonable or satisfactory. Before condoning the delay caused in preferring the appeal the Court, has to record its satisfaction that the explanation for delay furnished by the litigant is either reasonable or satisfactory."*

1. 10. It is pertinent to note that the only reason for delay of more than 10 years has been assigned by the Applicants is that they were facing adverse serious financial crunch and therefore unable to file SA within the prescribed time limit. This is certainly not a satisfactory explanation for such a huge delay. The reason for delay is not such on which basis it can be condoned.

1. 1. In these facts and circumstances, allowing the Condonation of Delay application of Applicant does not appear to be legally justified.

2. 12. In considered view of this Tribunal, in this case the justification and reasons given to condone the delay of 10 years and 3 months in filing the SA do not appear to be satisfactorily and legally justified. Accordingly, this Delay Condonation application deserves to be rejected on merit. Hence, the following order is passed:

**ORDER**

- ➤ Delay Condonation Application being M.A. No.59 of 2016 for delay in filing SA is hereby rejected.

- File be consigned to record.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**

Saloni