Shri Bholanath Kanaiyalal Prajapati vs YES BANK on 27 April 2026

1. 1. Ld. Counsel Mr. L. M. Patel filed his Memo of Appearance on behalf of Respondent Bank vide Exh.R/06. Let it be kept on record.

2. 2. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.30/2026 moved by Applicant for condoning delay of 15 days in filing above Securitisation Application have been heard.

3. 3. The present MA has been filed by Applicant for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing above Securitisation Application on the ground that the Applicant is not an educated person and he has no knowledge about the legal proceedings and procedures. He also spent some time in search of Advocate for obtaining legal advice. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the above Securitisation Application.

4. 4. The Applicant has further stated that the delay is not huge and properly explained. It is further contended that delay, if any, is not intentional and liberal approach in condoning delay should be adopted and delay should be condoned in filing above Securitisation Application.

5. 5. The Respondent Bank has opposed the above Application for Condonation of Delay on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the Application for Condonation of Delay are false and neither legal nor proper nor sufficient and no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay of 15 days and no day-to-day delay has been 2MA 30 of 2026

explained by Applicant in the Application and thus, the above Application deserves to be rejected.

1. 6. It appears from perusal of pleadings as also from the arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties that it has not seriously been disputed by Respondent Bank that some time could have been consumed in taking legal action. It has been held by **Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in LPA No.224/2020 in the case of Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi** that this Tribunal has discretion to entertain Application u/s 17(1) of SARFAESI Act beyond the period of 45 days as provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act would apply and such discretion has to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on the aspect of sufficient cause to condone the delay or not. The reasons as explained by Applicant in the Application for Condonation of Delay appear to be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the above case and thus, the Application for Condonation of Delay deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice.

2. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed. Delay of 15 days in filing Securitisation Application is hereby condoned.

3. 8. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitisation Application and let the SA be fixed for hearing on 28/04/2026.

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

\*ykb