Radius Estates and Developers Private Limited vs CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED on 10 August 2026

ORDER

In

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 47 OF 2025

(Delivered on 10.08.2026)

RADIUS ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

... Applicant/s

Versus

CFM ASSET RECONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED

... Respondent

Advocate Charles De Souza a/w Adv. Rupak Sawangikar for the Applicants.

Advocate Medha Rane a/w Adv. Sanjay Anabhawane and Adv. Prafull Chipte i/b M & S Legal for the Respondent.

O R D E R

1. The application is presented by the applicant to condone the delay of 29 days in filing the SA. The said petition is opposed by respondent stating that DRT has no power to condone the delay as requested by applicant.

2. The applicant contends that, on the initiation of measures by R1, for the loan of Rs.4,50,00,000/- granted to R3 for the premises herein, which was agreed to be sold to applicant R6, by agreement with R3, applicant had intervened on the application under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, filed before Ld. Magistrate. Now there is a delay of 29 days in filing the SA and applicant requests to condone the same.

3. Applicant contends that, notice under Section 13(2) SARFAESI Act was issued to the borrowers as R2 to R5, for the premises herein. The NCLT in the CIRP proceedings for R2, approved the resolution plan, and then the applicant terminated the allotment of subject property to R3, on failure to pay up the amount under the sale agreement. Proceedings under Section 14 SARFAESI Act was initiated by R1 before Ld. Magistrate, where the applicant had filed intervention applications.

4. Applicant further contends that, after getting legal advice in the last week of Appeal 2025, this Tribunal was approached, to challenge the measure by R1, against the property herein. The order under Section 14 SARFAESI Act, was passed on 04.05.2025. Due to some personal inconvenience for his counsel, and due to the absence of the legal officer of the applicant, the preparation of SA could be finalised only in May, 2025 and SA was filed on 03.06.2025. So, the delay of 29 days in filing the SA was not due to any wilful negligence on the side of the applicant.

5. The respondent contends that, the Limitation Act is not applicable to Section 17 SARFAESI Act, and the merits of the petition cannot be looked into, for condoning the delay. Tribunal has limited jurisdiction, and cannot transgress its jurisdictional limit, by condoning delay for filing petition under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

6. Both sides are heard.

7. Applicant relies on the reported decisions ,which are follows:-

- a. Aniruddh Singh v. Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine MP 206 / (2024)

- b. Bensen Exim Corporation v. Presiding Officer is a 2020 Madras High Court, 2020 SCC Online Mad 28189.

- c. Vedhanayaga Pandiyan Vs. Authorised Officer, Sriram Finance Limited (C.R.P (MD) No.1212 of 2024 and C.M.P (MD) No.6969 of 2024)

- d. Manglesh Champaklal Gandhi Vs. Aditiya Birla Finance Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Guj 7096.

- e. Baruah CC Block Industry Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2024) SCC Online Gau 1929.

- f. Jadgish Bhai Ghanshyambhai Shah vs. The Authorised Officer Bhagyodaya Co-operative Bank Limited.

- g. Uco Bank Mumbai Vs. M/s. Kanji Manji Kothari & Co. Mumbai and Ors. 2008 SCC Online Bom 170.

8. All the aforestated decisions, direct that Section 5 of Limitation Act are applicable to provision of SARFAESI Act.

9. The spirit of the decision reported in Aniruddh Singh v. Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine MP 206 / (2024) is as follows.

A handwritten signature in black ink, appearing to be a stylized 'M' or 'W' followed by a long horizontal stroke.

10. Both Limitation Act 1963 and SARFAESI Act are completed codes. It is specifically held that, Section 17 of SARFAESI Act or any other provision, does not expressly exclude the operation of beneficial provision under the Limitation Act. Section 29 (2) of Limitation Act inter alia, stipulates that, if the special law does not expressly exclude the applications of Section 4 to 24 of Limitation Act, then these provisions of Limitation Act shall apply qua all causes raised under the Special Law.

11. It is further seen from the aforesaid decision that, the special law i.e. SARFAESI Act, does not expressly exclude the application of the provisions from, Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act (including Section 5), and therefore, the benefit under Section 5 of Limitation Act shall be available, to the cause of action raised in application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. It is obvious that provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, would apply with full force, and are available for making a prayer for condonation of delay before the DRT, in application under Section 17(1), which are filed after expiry of 45 days.

12. The dictum laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India is passed, reversing the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which held that delay condonation in SARFAESI proceedings was not possible, as SARFAESI contained a shorter limitation period, without express condonation provision.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court had affirmed that, the legislative intent was, to treat the procedures of the RDB Act and SARFAESI Act as complementary to one another. By reading the provisions of both statutes together, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone the delay. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Neel Enterprises Vs. State Bank of India, bearing citation No. Manu/SC/0566/2018, held that, statutory authorities and Tribunals must, adopt a liberal approach towards minor procedural delays. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, statutory authorities, cannot penalise the borrower for minor procedural delays, when exercising their rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case, directed the DRT, to hear the matter on merits, after condoning a 14 days filing delay, under the SARFAESI Act.

14. In Hemlata Verma Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance co. Ltd. and Ors. Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that, a liberal and justice oriented approach, should be adopted, when dealing with condonation of delay. There, the delay was of 207 days. Hon'ble Supreme Court had disagreed, with the hypertechanical stand, and had reinforced the principle that, procedural technicities should not stand in the way of substantial justice. Delays should be forgiven, if the applicant demonstrates a bonafide, non-deliberate reason, for missing the dead line.

15. Here in this case, the 29 days delay is properly explained by the applicant, who, rightly or wrongly, was advised to intervene in the Section 14 SARFAESI proceedings before Ld. Magistrate. Subsequently, due to the personal inconvenience of the counsel, and awaiting the new legal officer in place of the officer who had left the position, are seen to be bonafide explanations, by applicant for the delay.

16. It is pertinent to note that, no deliberate action, in causing the delay for filing, was there, on the side of applicant, apart from the set-back due to the personal inconvenience of his counsel and awaiting the posting of new Law Officer. Further, the number of days delay is seen to be only 29 days, which according to this Tribunal is explained satisfactorily.

17. The respondent relies on the following orders.

1. a. Writ petition 8526 of 2026 by the Hon'ble High Court Bombay.

2. b. Order in Appeal 65 of 2023 by Hon'ble DRAT Mumbai.

18. The order produced by R1 in Writ Petition No.8526 of 2026 of Hon'ble High Court Bombay, is an interim order wherein the Hon'ble High Court had given an interim stay of the order passed by Hon'ble DRAT, in allowing the delay condonation in filing the SA. No final direction is passed by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the matter.

19. The order in the Appeal 65 of 2023 by Hon'ble DRAT Mumbai on 17.09.2025, is to the effect of confirming the decision of DRT, holding that Section 5 of Limitation act is not applicable to Section 17 proceedings. But the facts in the said case are not identical to the present case.

20. In the said case, the number of days delay was huge as the applicants therein had been pursuing different proceedings before Civil Court and Hon'ble High Court. There is an observation by Hon'ble DRAT in last portion of para 07 of the order. The said last portion of para 7 of the order has held that, the civil proceedings and proceedings before Hon'ble High Court by appellants, cannot be held to have been proceeded bonafidely. So, it has to be taken that, the order of Hon'ble DRAT was passed confirming the decision of DRT, on the ground that, the delay on the side of appellants therein, was not due to any bonafide mistake on their side.

21. The facts in the present case here are not in any way similar to the aforestated case disposed off by Hon'ble DRAT Mumbai. So, neither of the decisions offered by R1 can be applied here. No decisions holding a contrary view to the decisions stated in as (a) to (g) in para 7 of this order, stated above, are produced or offered by R1.

22. All the decisions stated above, are to the finding that, the filing delay, if properly explained, can be condoned by DRT. The decision of Hon'ble DRAT offered by respondent itself, in para 06 shows that, condonation of delay can be ordered on, giving sufficient and satisfactory reasons.

23. So, the present petition by the applicant is being allowed. However, to make the applicant mindful of being vigilant in further proceedings of the matter, the condonation of delay is being allowed on the applicant remitting a cost, at the rate of Rs.500/- for each day's delay, with the DRT Bar Association.

24. The delay of 29 days is condoned, and the Registry shall receive the matter on file, subject to the usual scrutiny, on the applicant producing the receipt of payment of costs with the DRT Bar Associations, at the rate of Rs.500/- for each day, within one week from the date of this order as stated above.

25. Petition as MA No.47 of 2025 is allowed and disposed off as above.

(Dictated to my Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and signed by me and pronounced in open forum on 10.08.2026)

Date: 10.08.2026

Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai-I (Sreekala Suresh)