Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

CHANDRESH NAVINCHANDRA JANI vs ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD on 15 December 2025

Exh- 8

1

MA 72 of 2025

**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD**

**Present: Praful Kumar Upadhyay, Presiding Officer**

**MISC. APPLICATION No.72 of 2025**

**IN**

**S.A. (Diary) No.2223 of 2025**

Date of Order: 15.12.2025

Chandresh N. Jani

..... Applicant

**Versus**

Mount Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd.

.....Respondent

*[Former Adarsh Co-operative Bank]*

**Present:** Mr. Chandresh N. Jani, Applicant as party in person Mr. Siddharth Padhiyar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for the Respondent Bank

**ORDER**

Page 1 of 3

1. 1. Ld. Counsel for both the parties on the Application for Condonation of Delay being Misc. Application No. 72 of 2025 moved by the Applicant for condoning delay of 31 days in filing above Securitization Application have been heard.

2. 2. Application being Misc. Application No. 72 of 2025 has been filed by the Applicant for Condonation of Delay of 31 days in filing above Securitization Application on 06.11.2025, calculated from the date of receipt of Possession Notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act by the Applicant on 21.08.2025. The Applicant has stated that if the prescribed period of 45 days from the date of receipt of possession notice is counted, the SA was required to be filed on or before 05.10.2025. However, the Applicant has filed above SA before this Tribunal u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act on 06.11.2025, as such there is a minor delay of 31 days in filing of SA. The 2MA 72 of 2025

Applicant further stated that due to Diwali Vacation from 20.10.2025 to 25.10.2025, the Applicant was under an impression that there would be vacation in courts from 07.12.2025 to 31.12.2025. He has further stated that the minor delay of 31 days caused in filing the above SA is not intentional and the Applicant has a strong case on merits. Therefore, the Applicant requested to condone the delay of 31 days in interest of justice.

1. 3. Per contra, the Respondent Bank has filed its reply vide Ex.R/6 and resisted the statements and averments made by the Applicant in the Application of Condonation of Delay. The Respondent has further contended that the Applicant had filed SA (Diary No.2223 of 2025) on 06.11.2025. Since there was delay in filing SA, the Applicant subsequently filed Misc. Application seeking Condonation of Delay, which was registered in the office of this Tribunal on 01.12.2025. The Applicant remained inactive and silent during the period from 06.11.2025 to 01.12.2025 and did not take any initiative for disposal of his application for condonation of delay. As such, there is a huge delay of 56 days and not 31 days as claimed by the Applicant. The Respondent has further contended that the reasons assigned by the Applicant for delay are not sufficient and he has failed to explained delay of each day as required under law. Therefore, the Respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present MA.

2. 4. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Applicant had lodged SA (Diary No.2223 of 2025) before this Tribunal on 06.11.2025. It may be noted that the Applicant is appearing as party in person and he may not be aware about the technical aspect of limitation for filing of SA under 17 of SARFAESI Act. He has also pleaded his misimpression about Diwali Vacation in courts. Therefore, he appears to have filed a separate application for condonation of delay being Misc. Application No.72 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay after some days of filing of SA. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that delay period of 31 days is required to be 3MA 72 of 2025

Page 2 of 3

counted for considering period of limitation. This Tribunal is further of the opinion that the delay is not huge and the Applicant has sufficiently explained reasons for the same.

1. 5. It has been held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in LPA No.224/2020 in the case of Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi that this 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 Applicant in his 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.

2. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Application for Condonation of Delay is allowed. Delay of 31 days in filing Securitization Application is hereby condoned.

3. 7. Registry is hereby directed to register and number the Securitization Application. - List the matter for hearing on 18.12.2025.

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

Saloni

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead