M S VENTURES PVT LTD vs INDIAN BANK on 12 August 2026

**ORDER**

**(Pronounced on 12.08.2026)**

1. The applicant, namely, MS Ventures Pvt. Ltd. has moved Misc. Application (M.A.) No.4/2026 for condonation of delay caused in filing Securitisation Application Diary No.1039/2025.

2. The averments made in the present application, in brief, are that the applicant has filed this case for direction to defendant No.1 (bank) to issue fresh corrected Sale Certificate in the name of the applicant mentioning the old and new boundaries and description of the sold property as mentioned in para 5.7 in respect of Non-Agricultural land (0.40 Hectares) and (3.52 Hectors), situated at Survey No.115, Mouza-Patansaongi, P.H. No.51, situated at Patansaonghi, Tah. and Dist. Nagpur. It is stated that defendant No.1 has issued Sale Certificate in the name of the applicant on 24.03.2025, wherein the boundaries mentioned are not correct and the applicant has issued various letters to defendant No.1 for issuing fresh and correct Sale Certificate. The

applicant is not challenging any sale certificate, but only requesting in correction of the same from this Tribunal. The applicant has filed an application on 24.11.2025. Inadvertently, there is delay of 200 days in filing the application. The applicant is a lay person, not aware of the steps to be taken after making representation with defendant No.1. The applicant approached the present counsel in the first week of November, 2025 and after going through the case papers, the applicant was advised to file the present application before this Tribunal.

3. It is further submitted that this delay of 200 days in filing present Securitisation Application is on account of above referred facts and the same is not intentional one and hence, the applicant has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the Securitisation Application.

4. Respondent No.1 (The Indian Bank) has filed its reply-cum-say dated 10.06.2026 to the present delay condonation application, alleging therein that the applicant is not challenging the underlying validity of the sale or the auction proceedings, but is merely seeking an amendment/rectification in the description and boundaries of the Sale Certificate with accurate details and as such, the delay does not appear to be intentional, colorable, or designed to commit fraud upon this Tribunal. It is further submitted that in the light of explanation tendered by the applicant regarding their lack of technical legal awareness and the subsequent time taken to gather paperwork through hussain

counsel, the answering respondent does not wish to take an adversarial stand on the point of limitation and it has no objection if delay of 200 days is condoned.

5. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (borrowers) have filed their reply dated 20.07.2026 and contested the application on the grounds that the applicant failed to disclose sufficient cause explaining the delay of 200 days from the alleged cause of action. The explanation furnished by the applicant is vague and unsupported by any documentary material. The prayer made in the main Securitisation Application is not within jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hence, the Securitisation Application itself is not maintainable. It is further alleged that the applicant is a seasoned auction purchaser and he has already purchased the industrial portion from the respondent bank and he is trying to change the entire Sale Certificate against the auction sale notice. The applicant's plea that he was not aware of the steps to be taken, is unsustainable. This Tribunal cannot enlarge the timeline on equitable or personal grounds, as the central objective of the SARFAESI Act is the swift and time-bound enforcement of security interests, hence this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. Mere reference to the facts of "not aware of the steps" cannot automatically extend the period of limitation prescribed under law and hence, the present application for condonation of delay is not maintainable. The answering hunarayan

[M.A.No.4/2026]

respondents denied all other allegations of the application and prayed for dismissal of M.A. No.4/2026.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record thoroughly and carefully.

7. Admittedly, the present applicant, namely MS Ventures Pvt. Ltd. is an auction purchaser, who purchased the mortgaged property in an auction conducted by respondent No.1 bank and Sale Certificate was issued on 24.03.2025 in favour of the applicant. Now the applicant has filed Securitisation Application along with present Misc. Application No.4/2026 for condonation of delay caused in filing the Securitisation Application, on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Certificate are not correct and the applicant issued various letters to respondent No.1 bank for issuing fresh and corrected Sale Certificate. As he was not aware of the steps to be taken in that regard and after making various representations to respondent No.1 bank, the applicant approached to the present counsel in November, 2025 and thereafter, on the advice of the counsel, the applicant has filed Securitisation Application before this Tribunal along with present application for condonation of delay

7. The above explanation submitted by the applicant for condonation of delay is sufficient, because even if this delay in filing S.A. is allowed, it would not cause any prejudice to the Benaman

[N Jahagirdar]

respondents/borrowers as they have filed separate Securitisation Application bearing registration No.269/2022, challenging all the SARFAESI proceedings conducted by respondent No.1 bank and the said S.A. is pending before this Tribunal and the next date of hearing in the said S.A. is fixed as 19.10.2026. It may be noted here that while deciding S.A. of the applicant on merits, every aspect of the case would be considered, including details of the property mortgaged to the bank in the Mortgage-Deed and thereafter, the SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by the bank and as to whether the details mentioned therein by the respondent bank are in accordance with the details of the mortgaged property as provided in the Mortgage-Deed or not. The present auction purchaser - applicant has claimed that the Sale Certificate issued in the name of the applicant on 24.03.2025, wherein boundaries of the suit property are not correctly mentioned and those were not corrected even by the bank despite various requests made by the applicant and ultimately, the present S.A. has been filed. Hence, in the given set of facts of the present case, if the delay in filing the S.A. by the applicant is condoned, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents/borrowers as both the Securitisation Applications can be decided on merits together. Moreover, respondent No.1 bank has pleaded no objection for condonation of delay as prayed, as per their reply filed on record.

Hunakaran

8. Having regard to the above observations and findings, in my opinion, the delay caused in filing Securitisation Application deserves to be condoned. Hence, I pass the following order:

**ORDER**

- (A) The delay caused in filing Securitisation Application Diary No.1039/2025 is hereby condoned. The present Misc. Application No.4/2026 is allowed accordingly.

- (B) The office is directed to register the Securitisation Application filed by the present applicant - auction purchaser and the same be listed before the learned Registrar of this Tribunal for reply by the respondents/completion of pleadings on 01.09.2026.

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan), I/c PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT, Nagpur, Camp at DRT, Aurangabad

Date : 12.08.2026

This image is a blank white page. It contains several small, dark specks which appear to be scanning artifacts or dust particles. There is no text, handwriting, or printed content on the page.