Ms Vrushali Vinod Kadam vs State Bank Of India on 13 February 2026

Judgment

(Delivered on 13th February, 2026)

1. By this application the applicants have claimed to condone the delay of 1267 days in filing Misc. Application for setting aside Ex-parte Judgement dated 13th February, 2020 in OA No.46/2019.

2. The averments in the application can be summarized as under:

It is contended by the applicant that there is delay of 1267 days in filing the Securitisation Application. It is contended that applicants being senior citizen were not keeping good health. The applicant No.2 was diagnosed with heart problem and was hospitalized and applicant No.1 was taking care of him therefore, they could not contact the Advocate. It is contended that applicants were informed about recovery proceedings and to put an end to litigation they tried to settle the accounts but same was rejected by the defendant No.1 bank on 3rd June, 2025. On 6th November, 2025 they obtained certified copy of the papers and proceedings. It is further contended that applicants being senior citizens are ignorant of the proceedings and were perusing the remedy in the wrong

forum. Therefore, delay may be condoned.

3. The defendant No.1 Bank resisted the application by contending that the present application is barred by limitation and not maintainable. The applicants have intentionally filed this application to obstruct the recovery of dues of defendant bank. The applicants have full knowledge of the proceedings and have appeared before the Recovery Officer. The applicants have produced forged medical documents. The applicants have failed to show any bonafide reason for the delay of more than 1267 days. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

4. The following points arise for my determination and I record my findings as under:

Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay?

What order?

Findings:

1. Point No.1 – In the affirmative

2. Point No.2 – As per final order.

Reasons

5. I have heard arguments of learned Advocate for applicants

[Kaur] (MA No.71/2025) Page 5 of 7

and defendant No.1 Bank. Perused the documents.

6. The learned Advocate appearing for the applicants relied upon the following Judgments:

Lalwani Ramnath Tiwari Vs. Bhimaro Govind Pawar reported in 2001 (3) Bom.C.R. 21

Hajrabi Abdul Gani Vs. Abdul Latif Azizulla and another reported in 1996(2) Bom.C.R.626.

Metal Rolling Works Ltd. Vs. Haresh Kapadia and Ors [Suit No.3550 of 2009 decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 28th February, 2023].

7. The learned Advocate appearing for defendant No.1 Bank relied upon the following Judgments:

ARCE Polymers Private Limited Vs. Alphine Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Ors reported in (2022) 2 Supreme Court Cases 221.

N Paraeswaran Unni Vs. G Kannan and another [Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2006 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 1st March, 2017].

Sou. Usha @Rashmi Ramesh Bhadre Vs. Shri Raviraj Yuvraj Chavan [Criminal Writ Petition No.2979 of 2023 decided by Hon’ble Bombay High Court on

[Kaur] (MA No.71/2025) Page 6 of 7

29th July, 2025].

Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dharminder Bhohi and others reported in (2017) ibclaw.in 39 SC

The Property Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda [Civil Appeal No.92 of 2026 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 7th January, 2026] Point Nos.1 and 2

8. It is the defense of defendant No.1 bank that the medical certificate produced by the applicants is not genuine which is not acceptable. At this juncture, it is to be noted that while dealing with delay condonation application Court should take pragmatic and liberal view. If delay is condoned the defendant No.1 bank will get an opportunity to contest the Application filed for setting aside ex parte Decree passed in OA No.46/2019. Therefore, application deserves to be allowed.

9. With great regard, I mention that Authorities cited supra by defendant bank are not applicable to present case as facts in that case turn on different points than facts of the present case. At the same time, I hold that Authorities cited supra by applicants are squarely applicable to the present

case. Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

A. The application is allowed. B. Delay of 1267 days in filing Application for setting aside Ex parte Decree dated 13th February, 2020 passed in OA No.46/2019 is hereby condoned subject to applicants deposit cost of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks. Out of said cost of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.25,000/- shall be paid to Pune DRT Bar Association and Rs.25,000/- to ‘Anandban’ Maharogi Sewa Samiti, Warora. C. After payment of cost, Application for setting aside Ex parte Decree passed in OA No.46/2019 shall be registered. Pronounced in open Court

Place : Pune Date 13.02.2026 Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune