DILKHUSH MAKABUL TAMBOLI vs BANK OF BARODA on 31 January 2026

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 31st January, 2026)

1. The Applicants have filed present application for condonation of delay for 770 days in filing Securitization Application for challenging the possession of the suit property, in the month of February 2019.

2. The averments made in the application can be summarized as under – The applicants had taken loan from the defendant bank but failed to repay the same within stipulated period, therefore, the defendant bank has initiated action under the provisions of SARFAESI Act by issuing Demand Notice and by taking symbolic possession sold the suit property in auction. Thereafter, on the basis of order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the District Magistrate, the Defendant Bank took possession of the suit property in the month of February 2019.

[ANIL]

The applicants challenged the sale of the suit property by filing separate Securitization Application alongwith delay condonation application, which has been condoned by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.04.2021. The applicants were trying to settle the loan account after taking possession of the suit property through OTS. Though OTS was sanctioned and some amount was deposited by the applicants, they could not repay the remaining OTS amount, therefore, it frustrated. Though they sought extension for OTS period, no response was given by the defendant bank. The applicants also tried to settle the loan account by raising loan from different Financial Institutions, however, the defendant bank refused to give NOC to mortgage the suit property to the proposed Financial Institutions, which were ready to grant loan to the applicants. The applicants are Medical Practioner and were busy to provide Medical Services to COVID Patients for long period. Both the applicants also suffered from Corona and hospitalized. In the circumstances, they could not approach legal experts to take take advise and take action against the defendant bank and, therefore, could not file Securitization Application challenging the possession of the suit property

[ANIL]

taken by the defendant bank and, therefore, delay of about 770 days took place. Therefore, they pray for condonation of delay of 770 days in filing Securitization Application.

3. The defendant bank by filing reply (Exh.12) resisted the application. It is contended that the grounds for condonation of delay are not sufficient and, therefore, application may be rejected.

4. Following points arise for my determination and I record findings thereon as under:- Points:– (A)- Whether grounds for delay condonation mentioned in the application supported by the documents are suffice?

(B)- Whether the applicants are entitled for relief as claimed?

(C )- What order?

Findings:-

(A)- Yes.

(B)- Yes. (C) – As per final order.

5. Heard the Learned Advocate for both the parties. They, in their arguments reiterated their pleadings in application and reply respectively.

[ANIL]

6. The Learned Advocate for the Applicants relied on the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in WP No.03/2020 dated 08.03.2021.

7. Perused the documents.

8. It appears that after having taken possession of the suit property by the defendant bank in the month of February 2019, the applicants strive strenuously to settle the loan account through OTS as well as by raising loan from another Financial Institutions, but they could not succeed. Thereafter, they were busy in providing medical services to COVID patients for long period. Resultantly, they suffered CORONA and hospitalized. At this juncture, it is to be noted that delay condonation application has to be dealt with liberally and not by applying straight jacket formula. In my opinion, grounds mentioned in the application which caused delay in filing Securitization Application challenging the possession of the suit property taken by the defendant bank are suffice. Most pertinent is that this Tribunal has condoned the delay in filing Securitization Application challenging the sale of the suit property by the defendant bank in suo-moto Writ Petition No.03/2020 by the Hon’ble High Court on 08.03.2021.

[ANIL]

In the circumstances, if the delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant bank. Per contra, it will get an opportunity to contest the Securitization Application with evidence. Resultantly, I hold that the application deserves to be allowed. Hence by answering these points accordingly, I pass following order: -

ORDER

(A) Miscellaneous Application No. 04/2021 is allowed.

(B) Delay of

days in filing Securitization Application challenging the possession of the suit property taken by the defendant bank is hereby condoned subject to the Applicants to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the Defendant Bank within two weeks from today.

(C) Payment of cost is condition precedent for registration of Securitization Application.

(D) After compliance of payment of cost, Securitization Application shall be admitted and registered.

Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.

Place: Pune Date: 31.01.2026

Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.