Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
ABHINAV JAGDISHPRASAD GARG vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 25 February 2025
*Exh-08*
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD**
**Present: Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay, Presiding Officer**
**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.: 26 OF 2023**
***Date of Order: 25/02/2025***
Abhinav Jagdishprasad Garg and Anr ..... Applicants **Versus**
State Bank of India ..... Respondent
**Present:** Mr Arpit Kapadia, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants.
Mr. M A Solanki for Shri P G Patel, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.
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.
**ORDER**
MA 26/2023 for condonation of delay.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicants herein are neither the borrower nor guarantor but an aggrieved person as being an owner of the property purchased from Income Tax Department vide document registration No.11392 dated 03.09.2019 on auction. The applicant in the present S.A. was not aware that the original owner Shri Arvind Omprakash Varma (respondent no.4 herein) had mortgaged the said property with the bank and on failure to pay the amount due, the respondent no.1 authorised officer of SBI in compliance with direction of competent authority in M A No.3848 of 2022, the Court Commissioner under Section 14(1-A) of SARFEASI Act took physical possession of subject property on 18.02.2023 without even serving a notice on the applicant. Thereafter the applicants sought certified copies of proceedings from the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Surat.
The learned counsel for applicant submits that applicants have become owner of subject property by way of registered sale deed dated 03.09.2019 executed by the Income Tax Department through Tax Recovery Officer (respondent no.2). Hence, they have not abandoned the case, but came to know of the original position only after actual physical possession was taken by respondent no.1 under the SARFEASI Act and pray for condonation of delay.
The cause of delay of 100 days is not any deliberate act of the applicant but only total ignorance of facts of any securitisation action being initiated against the borrower/original owner of the secured asset.
Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents has objected the prayer of the applicant and emphasised on the reply on behalf of respondent no.1 Bank Ex. R/7.
I have heard both the Counsels and perused the records. I am in full agreement with the plea of applicant that the delay in filing proposed SA is not deliberate but ignorance of fact of securitisation action being initiated by the bank against the borrower/original owner of the secured asset.
The interest of justice lies in disposing disputes between the parties after giving proper opportunity of hearing to both the parties and denying the opportunity of hearing on technical ground is not going to serve the interest of justice.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the view that the delay in filing the proposed S.A. in this case deserves to be condoned.
ORDER
M.A. 26/2023 is hereby allowed and delay in filing proposed S.A is hereby condoned.
Registry is directed to Register the proposed S.A on Original Number.
(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, AHMEDABAD
\*abp\*