Mr Shyamkumar Jodhraj Devda vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA on 17 September 2026

1. 1. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Applicants for condonation of delay of 91 days in filing Securitization Application, stating therein that pursuant to order dated 13/02/2025 passed by Ld. CJM Navsari u/s.14 of the SARFAESI Act, the Court Commissioner had issued notice dated 21/02/2025 for taking physical possession of the property in question. Upon receipt of the said notice from Court Commissioner, the Applicants approached Respondent Bank for OTS offer under the bank's special OTS Scheme 2025-2026. The said OTS offer was rejected by the Respondent Bank vide its communication dated 10/06/2025. While rejecting the OTS offer of the Applicants, the officers of the Respondent Bank orally informed the Applicants on 17/06/2025 that they will take physical possession of the property in question on 22/06/2025. However, the Bank did not take possession on that date. Thereafter the Applicants have come before this Tribunal by lodging Securitization Application u/s.17 of the SARFAESI Act on 01/07/2025. Since the Court Commissioner had not issued any other 2MA 59 of 2025

notice in writing to the Applicants after 21/02/2025 and the Bank orally informed the Applicants from time to time for taking physical possession of the property in question, there is a delay of 91 days in filing Securitization Application. The Applicants further stated that the Applicants have approached this Tribunal immediately after obtaining certified copies of the relevant documents. The Applicants also consumed some time in approaching their advocate for taking legal advice and preparing the petition. In these circumstances, there is delay in filing the Securitization Application.

1. 2. The Applicants have 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 Securitization Application.

2. 3. The Respondent Bank has opposed the present application for condonation of delay by filing its reply vide Exh.R/08. The Respondent has contended that the Securitization Application is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Applicants have also not shown any bona fide reasons in the Application to condone the delay. The Applicants have not paid any amount after date of NPA to the Respondent Bank to clear their dues, which shows that the Applicants have no intention to pay the outstanding amount but to create hurdles in recovery process initiated by the bank. Therefore, the Respondent Bank has prayed that the present application deserves to be rejected.

3. 4. 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 3MA 59 of 2025

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 Applicants 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.

1. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed. Delay of 91 days in filing Securitization Application is hereby condoned.

2. 6. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitization Application.

**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD** **17.09.2026**

\*shailja