MR SURAJ YUVRAJ PATEL vs MOTILAL OSWAL HOME FINANCE LIMITED on 29 August 2025

1. 1. Arguments of Ld. Counsel for both the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being M.A. No.39/2024 moved by Applicants for condoning delay of 475 days in filing above Securitisation Application have been heard.

2. 2. It is the case of the Applicants that the Respondent FI sold the disputed property on 27.02.2023, as informed to the Applicants vide letter dated 25.06.2024. However, the Respondent FI did not disclose details of auction, date and time, name and address of the auction purchaser in the said letter. Therefore the Applicants requested the Respondent FI vide their letters dated 21.02.2024 and 12.06.2024 to supply the said details. But the Respondent has failed to do so till date. Therefore, the Applicants approached Ld. District Magistrate, Surat for obtaining certified copies of papers under RTI Act. The Applicants were provided the papers on 29.06.2024. On perusal of the said papers, the Applicants came to know that the Respondent issued Demand Notice dated 24.06.2024 u/s 13(2) of 2MA 39 of 2024

SARFAESI Act demanding an amount of Rs.15,20,774/- from the Applicants. However, the Applicants have not received the said Demand Notice. The Respondent has also alleged to have taken over possession of the property in question on 13.11.2019. The Applicants have filed the present Securitisation Application on 22.07.2024. Considering the fact that the property in question was sold by the Respondent by way of auction on 27.02.2023, the Applicants were required to file SA u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act on or before 11.04.2023. However, in absence of service of any Demand Notice, Possession Notice or Sale Notice to the Applicants, they could not file Securitization Application before this Tribunal within the prescribed time-limit. Moreover, the Applicants were pre-occupied with family affairs and therefore also they were unable to file Securitisation Application within prescribed time-limit. After coming to know about sale of the property in question from the letter dated 25.06.2024 written by the Respondent, the Applicants applied for certified copies of relevant papers under RTI Act and after obtaining such papers, the Applicants have approached this Tribunal by way of present application. As such there is no delay. However, in order to avoid any technicalities, if the limitation period is computed from the date of sale of the property i.e. 27.02.2023, there is a delay of 475 days, which may be condoned in the interest of justice.

1. 3. The Respondent FI has filed its Affidavit-in-Reply to the present application vide Ex.R/08 and denied the statements and averments made in the application. The Respondent has further contended that the ground for condonation of delay, as pleaded by the Applicants, is not justifiable. The symbolic possession of the property in question was taken on 13.11.2019 and thereafter physical possession was taken on 22.06.2022. Thereafter the property was sold on 10.03.2023. During all this time, the Applicants did not prefer to challenge the measures taken by the Respondent FI till 3MA 39 of 2024

22.07.2024. The Applicants have not shown any justification or sufficient cause for the huge delay of 475 days in filing the present SA. The ground raised by the Applicants is vague and mechanical and therefore the application for condonation of delay should not be allowed. The Respondent has further contended that there is no provision for extension of period of limitation prescribed by Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. Looking to the conduct of the Applicants there are no bona fide reasons for condonation of delay. In support of his contentions, the Respondent FI has relied on the following judgments.

- ➤ **Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in case of Authorised Office, Indian Bank Vs. K.J. George (2020 SCC Online Ker 4886) decided on 02.11.2020.**

- ➤ **Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Vasawaraj&Ors Vs. The special land Acquisition Officer in Civil Application No.6974 of 2013 decided on 22.08.2013.**

1. 4. It appears from the perusal of pleadings and evidence led by both the parties as also from the arguments of Ld. Counsels for both the parties that the delay on the part of the Applicants has reached upto a stage where every action under SARFAESI Act has been taken from issuance of notice u/s 13(2), to taking physical possession to putting the secured asset to auction sale, to completion of auction by registration with the office of SRO, Palsana, Surat on 11.03.2023 and thereby creating third party interest.

2. 5. It is also important to note that in their own version the Applicants admit that they have not proceeded to take any recourse of law against the SARFAESI actions initiated by the Respondent Bank till it reached its finality.

3. 6. In this case there is serious doubt about the intentions of the Applicants who admittedly have taken loan from the Respondent Bank, and kept strategic silence from the date of issuing of notice u/s 13(2) SARFAESI

4MA 39 of 2024

Act on 24.06.2019 till the date of filing the present SA. Surprisingly, the Applicants have not chosen to contest the action of physical and actual possession being taken by the Respondent from the Applicants on 22.06.2022. Thus, it can certainly be concluded that the Applicants have slept over their rights to pursue and contest their case and this strategic silence maintained by the Applicants on crucial stage of losing the actual physical possession of the secured asset appears to be safe reason to conclude that the Applicants are now estopped from raising their claim after passing more than 3 years. The Condonation of Delay is an equitable relief and equity does not help the person who is found slipping on his rights. It is also an admitted fact that the Applicants have never tried to repay their loan till the stage they were legally entitled to redeem their loan. It will also not be out of place to emphasise here that the only reason for delay of such a huge size has been assigned by the Applicants is that the Applicants were pre-occupied with family affairs and therefore they were unable to file Securitisation Application within prescribed time-limit. This reason is totally non-justifiable, that a person whose physical possession from his property has been actually taken away under Securitisation proceedings, has not even made a try to take legal course within time just because he was pre-occupied with family affairs. This is certainly not a satisfactory explanation of delay of this type. The reason for delay is not such on which basis this delay may be condoned.

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

2. 8. In considered view of this Tribunal in this case the justification and reasons given to condone the delay of 475 days in filing the SA do not 5MA 39 of 2024

appear to be satisfactorily and ~~illegally~~ ^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.39 of 2024 for delay in filing SA is hereby rejected.

File be consigned to record.

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

Nishita