durga Associates vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 19 June 2026

Judgment

(Delivered on 19th June, 2026)

1. By this application the applicant has claimed to condone the delay of 146 days in filing Securitisation Application against the defendant bank.

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

It is contended by the applicant that it is partnership firm and owner of the suit property. Defendant No.3 is the Principal Borrower who has availed loan from defendant

No.2, defendant No.4 is the Chairman and Managing Director of defendant No.3. Defendant No.5 is the guarantor for the loan availed by defendant No.3.

3. It is the case of the applicant that defendant No.3 through defendant No.4 approached the applicant and requested the applicant to give the right to develop the suit property on the basis of Development Agreement and expressed its intention to give 62000 Sq.ft construction to the applicant which would be constructed at the Eastern side of the suit property and defendant No.3 would construct 62000 Sq.ft on the Western side for which it was free to sale the said construction. Accordingly, Development Agreement was executed between applicant and defendant No.3 and also applicant gave Power of Attorney to defendant No.3.

4. It is further contended that under the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney right to mortgage the suit property was not given to defendant No.3. However, applicant came to know that defendant No.3 availed the loan from defendant No.2 and mortgaged the entire property. Thereafter, applicant issued letter to defendant No.2 contending that defendant No.3 was not authorized

to mortgage the suit property. Defendant No.2 did not reply the said letter.

5. It is further contended that defendant No.1 issued Notices to defendant No.3 i.e. the borrower under the SARFAESI Act. However, the said notices were not issued to the applicant. Defendant No.1 took the symbolic possession of the suit property on 8th February, 2023.

6. It is further contended that applicant got the knowledge of the symbolic possession through defendant No.3. Thereafter, applicant started taking legal opinion. It is contended that as per advise the applicant approached the Civil Court for cancellation of Development Agreement and Power of Attorney. Applicant also filed Police complaint against defendant No.3 and even approached RERA.

7. Thereafter, applicant also approached Hon’ble High Court and filed Writ Petition. The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to direct the applicant to resort the remedy u/s 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, applicant approached this Tribunal.

8. On the above mentioned grounds, the applicant prays for

granting application by condoning delay of 146 days in filing Securitisation Application.

9. Defendant No.1 through its Advocate appeared but did not file Reply.

10. 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 negative.

2. Point No.2 – As per final order.

Reasons

11. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant. No arguments made on behalf of defendant bank. Therefore, I proceed to decide this application on merits and documents produced in support of the same. As to Point Nos.1 and 2

12. Perused the record. Admittedly, defendant Nos.3 to 5 took loan from defendant bank by mortgaging suit property which is owned by the applicant who gave it for

development vide Development Agreement and Power of Attorney. As defendant Nos.3 to 5 failed to repay loan to defendant bank, defendant bank initiated action under the SARFAESI Act by issuing Demand Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and took symbolic possession of the suit property on 8th February, 2023 in pursuance of symbolic possession notice issued to the borrowers.

13. The applicant now wishes to challenge action of the defendant bank initiated under the SARFAESI Act for which delay of 146 days has occurred in filing the Securitisation Application.

14. The reasons for causing delay in filing Securitisation Application as mentioned in the application are that applicant was advised that he need not file any proceeding in this Court as he has not received Demand Notice or symbolic possession notice from the defendant bank. Further, he was advised to file Civil Suit for cancellation of Development Agreement and Power of Attorney against defendant Nos.3 to 5 in Civil Court and accordingly, he filed. As per advise he also filed Criminal Complaint against defendant Nos.3 to 5 to Police and EOW and also

in RERA. Thereafter, applicant was advised to file Writ Petition before Hon’ble High Court Mumbai and accordingly, he filed the same and as per direction therein filed the Securitisation Application in this Court and therefore, delay caused.

15. However, the reasons for causing delay in filing Securitisation Application appears not to be sufficient to condone the delay. According to applicants, he acted as per advise but it is not mentioned who advised him and this reason could not be branded as sufficient to condone the delay. No doubt, applicant filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court in the year 2023 as per advise. Therefore, question arises as to when advise for filing Writ Petition was given then why Advisor could not advise earlier for the same.

16. In view of these observations, I hold that since grounds for condonation of delay in filing Securitisation Application are not adequate, it is liable for dismissal. Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

A. Miscellaneous Application No.49/2023 is hereby dismissed. B. All pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of. C. The defendant bank shall intimate action if taken under the SARFAESI Act to the applicant also. Pronounced in open Court

Place : Pune Date 19.06.2026

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