UCO BANK vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 19 September 2019

JUDGEMENT

Delivered on this 19 th day of Sept., 2019

This is an application filed by applicant bank praying for condonation of delay of 7 months 9 days in filing Securitization Application

2. Application averments: R3 to R6 are the owners of the secured asset. Shri Yashvant Govindrao Somalwar executed lease deed which was registered at No.978/1969, thereby applicant become tenant of the suit premises and started its banking operations from the said premises. The said lease deed was renewed from time to time and lastly on 4.1.2017 vide registration No.43/2017. Applicant bank shockingly came to receive envelope containing letter dated 19.6.2018 on 16.7.18 issued by Tahsildar, Nagpur whereby it came to know about possession U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act by invoking recourse U/s 14 of SARFAESI Act is being sought by R1 . Immediately, with the help of their empanelled advocate, applicant enquired

Gvp the matter with office of District Magistra te, Nagpur whereby it is revealed that respondent bank has obtained impugned order for physical possession of various properties of R2 to R7 including the premises wherein the applicant bank is operating its business. Immediately, applicant applied for certified copy of the impugned order, which was received on 18.7.2018. Applicant was never served with any notice U/s 13(4) . No notice was affixed by R1 bank at any point of time on the impugned property and as such knowledge of process of SARFAESI action was never had by the applicant. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.10.2017 passed by the Ld. District Magistrate, Nagpur in Case No.266/2016, further notice dated 19.6.2018 for handover physical possession and illegal acts of Respondent bank, applicant has been constained to file appeal. Since the appellants for the first time acquired knowledge about impugned order on 16.7.2018, and thereafter applicant was in the process of drafting the S.A. and, therefore, the applicant could not file the S.A. within limitation and as such there is delay of 7 months 9 days occurred in filing the S.A., which is prayed to be condoned in the interest of justice.

3. Reply averments: R1 bank filed reply in Exh.8 wherein it is interalia submitted that applicant bank filed S.A. with deliberate and malafide intention to delay the recovery proceedings initiated by R1 bank under SARFAESI Act against

Gvp R2 to R7 for recovery of its legitimate dues. The reasons and grounds as mentioned in the application for condonation of delay are absolutely vague, incorrect and not maintainable and the same are also been apparently seen from the pleading of this application. Hence, this application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. Now the point for consideration is

(i) Whether the delay of 7 months 9 days can be condoned? 5.00 Point no.(i) Applicant bank’s reply to I.A. 60/2019 not filed. Mr. Abhijit Meshram, Jr. Advocate of Applicant’s Advocate requests time. Applicant and their Advocate called absent since long as is being contended by R1’s Advocate. This M.A. is filed for condonation of delay of 7 months 9 days as mentioned in prayer clause (i) in filing the S.A. But, on the heading of the M.A., it is mentioned as “condonation of delay of 52 days”. R1’s Advocate vehemently opposed for any further adjournment and submitted that the day to day delay which is supposed to be explained by the applicant was not at all explained either in the application or through any other documentary evidence and that the M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 5.01 Admittedly, applicant is a nationalized bank which is having necessary infrastructure through their men and material

Gvp like Law Department etc. According to R1 bank’s Advocate, applicant bank is having knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the R1 bank for taking over possession of the secured asset under SARFAESI Act, which is said to be in the possession of the applicant bank. Hence, applicant herein who is Chief Manager of the Nationalized bank, aged 58 years having necessary experience with the legal affairs of the bank, cannot assume that he can ignore by challenging the SARFAESI action for an inordinate period of 7 months 9 days. 5.02 As per the rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicant who wants to file a case after expiry of the Limitation period and to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, such applicant has to explain the “day to day delay”. In the present case, the applicant failed to explain the “day to day delay” and i s not even getting ready to argue the matter, though R1’s Advocate is pressing for its disposal. Hence, this Tribunal does not see any reason to condone the inordinate delay of 7 months 9 days, which is not at all explained on ‘day to day basis’ by the ap plicant bank’s Chief Manager. Hence, this Tribunal does not see any reason to allow this application and it is liable to be dismissed with costs and is dismissed accordingly.

In the result, inordinate delay of 7 months 9 days as admitted by the applicant is not condoned and consequentially dismissed with costs.

Gvp

Consequentially, interim protections / I.As pending, if any are deemed to have been vacated / closed.

Nagpur

Dt.19.09.2019 (Chikkam Vijay Mohan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur