MUKTABEN BABUBHAI BHUVA vs BANK OF BARODA on 13 October 2025

Exh-5

CA/3/2025

**IN THE HON'BLE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD**

**CHAMBER APPEAL NO: 3 OF 2025**

**SECURITISATION APPLICATION (DIARY) NO: 1419 OF 2025**

**Date of Order : 13/10/2025**

MUKTABEN BABUBHAI BHUVA

... APPELLANT

ORIGINAL APPLICANT

Versus

BANK OF BARODA

... Respondents

**Present:**

Shri D.D. Chauhan

:

Ld. Counsel for Appellant

The Appellant has submitted that the Appellant has filed this Chamber Appeal against the report dated 19-09-2025 of Ld. Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad by which he has declined to register the SA filed by the Appellant on the ground that it is not accompanied with a condonation of delay application. In this regard, the Ld. Registrar has submitted in his report that the Applicant who is the third party has challenged the measures taken by the Respondent Bank, of not refunding the total sale proceed deposited by the Appellant third party, with regard to auction held under SARFAESI Act.

In this connection, the Ld. Registrar has mentioned in his report that the Applicant Appellant has submitted a letter to the Respondent Bank seeking cancellation of the sale certificate and refund of the sale consideration amount. The sale was conducted under SARFAESI Act through auction and the Appellant was declared as the highest bidder. He has deposited the entire amount and after depositing entire sale consideration amount and issuance of sale certificate, he has issued a letter which bears an inward date 14-02-2025 for cancellation of sale and refund of the sale proceeds. The Respondent Bank has responded by issuing reply dated 06-03-2025 and the draft SA was filed for registration by the Appellant on 17-07-2025 challenging the action of the Respondent Bank for not refunding the sale proceeds.

In this connection, on previous objection of the Ld. Registrar, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has filed Purshish before the Registry stating therein that prior to filing this

SA, the Applicant has issued legal notice dated 30-05-2025 to the Respondent Bank. The said notice has been despatched by the Advocate of Appellant to the Respondent Bank on 01-07-2025 and notice was served to the Respondent Bank on 05-07-2025 and therefore, this SA is not barred by limitation. The report of Ld. Registrar is based on the fact that this SA has been filed against the action of the Respondent Bank and that action is in this case, **is the reply of the Respondent Bank** which was issued on 06-03-2025 and from that, this SA has been filed beyond 45 days and it is barred by limitation and on this ground the Ld. Registrar exercised his duty **under Rule 5(4) of the Debts Recovery (Procedure) Rules 1993** and declined to register the SA as it was not accompanied with the delay condonation application.

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that by declining to register the SA vide the impugned order dated 19-09-2025, the Ld. Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction. The Ld. Registrar is not empowered to decide the merits of the SA, it was in the purview of the Ld. Presiding Officer to decide whether the SA was barred by limitation or not. Declining to register the SA on the ground of not being accompanied with delay condonation application, Registrar has done something which he was not empowered to do. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has relied on judgement passed by **Hon'ble Madras High Court in Sasikala Versus Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Salem in WP No: 33622 of 2023 passed on 02-02-2024** in which **Hon'ble High Court** has hold in **Para 3** as under :- **"As per the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, "Tribunal" shall consist of one person only, viz., the "Presiding Officer". The orders in recovery proceedings have to be passed by the Recovery Officer, and in an appeal, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. The Registrar may raise objections with regard to the defects and if defects are not rectified, decline to register the application. For deciding the issue and/or aspect of limitation, the matter has to be placed before the Recovery Officer and/or the Presiding Officer, as the case may be. In the present case, orders are passed by the Registrar at every stage."**

Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned report of Ld. Registrar is given exercising a power which is not actually vested with Ld. Registrar and accordingly he has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 19-09-2025 and also a direction to Ld. Registrar to register the SA of the Applicant.

I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records. On bare perusal of the impugned report of Ld. Registrar, it makes clear that the Ld. Registrar has not decided about the issue of limitation in this case. He has simply given a report that as per the fact provided by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant, the SA has been filed beyond 45 days of action challenged and accordingly, it requires to be accompanied by the delay condonation application since that delay condonation application was not filed, he has declined to register the SA submitting the impugned report dated 19-09-2025.

In this connection, the argument by the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant is based on the Purshish filed by the Applicant placed on Page 12 of this Appeal which was filed before Ld. Registrar on 25-08-2025, stating therein that against the letter dated 06-03-2025 of the Respondent Bank, the Applicant has issued notice dated 30-05-2025. However, the said notice have been despatched by the Advocate of Applicant to Respondent Bank on 01-07-2025 and served to Respondent Bank on 05-07-2025 and therefore, the present SA is filed within the limitation of 45 days. This argument cannot be accepted as the legal notice don't create or extend the period of limitation. The date which matter in this case is the date of rejection of the application of the Applicant by the Respondent Bank which is passed on 06-03-2025 against which the proposed SA has been filed and the legal notice in this case cannot be permitted to extend the limitation because the legal notice is not challenged in this case. What is challenged is the order of the Bank so the limitation period will be counted from the date of order/letter of the Respondent Bank dated 06-03-2025. This may be understood by a simple example – Can a notice for sale of secured assets, be challenged beyond 45 days of its issuance, without any delay condonation application, only on the ground that legal notice against this sale notice was issued by the borrower after 30 days of that notice and limitation should be counted from date of legal notice? Definitely not.

Accordingly, in the considered views of this Tribunal, Ld. Registrar was well within his power vested with him by **Rule 5(4) of the Debts Recovery (Procedure) Rules 1993**, to decline to register the proposed SA, if the objection with regard to filing the delay condonation application was not removed. It will not be out of place to mention here that the judgement which the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has cited also protect the right of the Registrar in this regard. In Para 3 of this ruling, it is clearly pointed out that **"The Registrar may raise objections with regard to the defects and if defects are not rectified, decline to register the application."**

In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Tribunal finds no merit in this Chamber Appeal and hence this Chamber Appeal No: 3/2025 deserves to be rejected.

**ORDER**

The Chamber Appeal No: 3/2025 is hereby rejected. Let this file be consigned to records.

**(Pankaj Kumar Upadhyay)** **Presiding Officer** **DRT-II, Ahmedabad.**

us/11