Faizan Iqbalbhai Ghaniwala And Ors vs ICICI BANK LIMITED on 24 April 2025

**ORDER**

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.45/2023 moved by Applicants for condoning delay of 15 days in filing above Securitisation Application have been heard.

2. 2. Application being M.A. No.45/2023 has been filed by Applicants for condonation of delay of 15 days in filing above Securitisation Application on 26.09.2023 as it is filed after from the date of auction held on 28.07.2023.

3. 3. Ld. Counsel for the Applicants, while arguing on application for condonation of delay, submitted that auction notice was never served to the Applicants and hence, the Applicants were not aware about the auction held by the Respondent Bank. Upon inquires, the Applicants learnt that the Respondent Bank published E-Auction sale notice on 2MA 45 of 2023

19.06.2023 for auctioning the property in question and the date of auction was fixed on 28.07.2023. Thereafter, the Applicants wrote a letter dated 03.08.2023 to the Respondent Bank requesting the Bank to provide all loan documents as well as auction proceedings to the Applicants. The Respondent Bank did not provide any documents to the Applicants in response to the said letter.

1. 4. It is further the case of the Applicants that Applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of Applicant no.1 and they are not keeping good health due to old age and Applicant no.2, being son, is busy in taking care of his parents. Thus, due to medical reasons, the Applicants were unable to approach this Tribunal within prescribed time limit. They have further stated that some time was also consumed in taking legal advice and making inquiries about Advocates to represent their case before this Tribunal at Ahmedabad. Time was also consumed by the Applicants in obtaining copies of relevant documents from the office of Ld. CJM Jamnagar, and in arranging funds for payment of court fees and lawyers' fees.

2. 5. He further submitted 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 as there has been continuous cause of action as per judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 28/06/2024 passed in LPA No.224/2020 in the case of ***Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. V/s Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi & Ors.*** Thus, Ld. Counsel for the Applicants prayed for condonation of delay in filing above Securitisation Application.

3. 6. The Respondent Bank has opposed the above Application for Condonation of Delay on the ground that the reasons mentioned in the 3MA 45 of 2023

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

1. 7. It appears from perusal of pleadings and evidence led by both the parties as also from the arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties that the auction of the property in question was conducted on 28.07.2023 and the Applicants have filed Securitisation Application before this Tribunal on 26.09.2023. As such, there is a little delay of 15 days in filing Securitisation Application on account of aforesaid genuine reasons.

2. 8. 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. 9. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitisation Application.

List the matter be fixed for hearing on 08.05.2025.

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

Nishita