SHIVRATNA UDYOG LTD vs THE SOLAPUR DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD on 27 August 2026

Judgment

(Delivered on 27th August, 2026)

1. By this application the applicant has claimed to condone the delay of 158 days (in fact 161 days) in filing Securitisation Application against the defendant bank and Auction Purchaser.

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

It is contended by the applicant that it is a Public Limited Company who is borrower and mortgagor in respect of the alleged credit facility granted by defendant bank.

3. It is the case of the applicant that on 6th September, 2019 defendant bank issued Sale Notice for sale of the immovable properties along with plant and machinery. Thereafter, the auction was conducted on 25th September, 2019. Defendant No.3 participated in the said auction and was declared as successful bidder.

4. It is further contended by the applicant that on various occasions by writing letters on 25th October, 2019, 28th November, 2019 and 5th December, 2019 tried for getting details of sale but defendant bank failed and neglected to provide the same. Thereafter,

applicant on 2nd January,2020 issued Legal Notice to the defendant bank which was duly served. Even then, defendant bank did not provide details of sale.

5. It is further contended that the applicant found the Sale Certificate registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur and got the certified copy of the Sale Certificate dated 23rd October, 2019 on 31st January, 2020. The applicant then came to know that the Auction Sale was conducted on 25th September, 2019 and Sale Certificate was issued on 23rd October, 2019. Thereafter, applicant collected documents and approached the Advocate for filing of the Securitisation Application and delay is caused.

6. It is contended by the applicant that there is no intentional delay in filing the Securitisation Application, however the defendant bank hided the information with intention to frustrate the rights of the applicant to file the Securitisation Application. On the above mentioned grounds, the applicant prays for condoning the delay of 158 days caused in filing the Securitisation Application.

7. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing Reply (Exhibit-15) resisted the application on the grounds that the present application is neither legal nor bonafide and is not maintainable. It is further stated that applicant has alleged that it got knowledge about the Sale Certificate dated 23rd October, 2019 only on 31st January, 2020 when certified copy was obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar,

Pandharpur. The applicant has not attached the application which was made to the Sub-Registrar Office for obtaining certified copy with the present application. Thus, it is clear that applicant was aware about the sale. Further, the sale of the Sugar Factory was widely advertised in various local newspapers and the name of the purchaser and the consideration amount was also mentioned therein.

8. It is further stated that the applicant was present in the Meeting called by Commissioner of Sugar, Sakhar Sankul, Shivajinagar, Pune on 25th November, 2019 wherein discussions regarding the payment of outstanding FRP of Sugarcane Farmers and also outstanding due of applicant were discussed. Thus, the applicant got the knowledge about the sale conducted by the defendant bank on that day.

9. It is further stated that the reasons given by the applicant for inability to file the Securitisation Application are not adequate and enough. There is no description of property in the Miscellaneous Application. The applicant was well aware about the sale which took place on 25th September, 2019. The application is filed to harass the Auction Purchaser. They, therefore, pray for dismissal of the application.

10. The defendant No.3, Auction Purchaser by filing Reply (Exhibit-13) resisted the application on the ground that the present application is not maintainable. The applicant had full knowledge of the sale as

the news of sale of the property was published in the newspapers. The applicant has played fraud and no sufficient cause is mentioned for the delay. It, therefore, prays for dismissal of the application.

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

(1) Whether applicant prove that there is sufficient cause for causing delay of 158 days (in fact 161 days) in filing Securitisation Application?

(2) Whether applicant is entitled for condonation of delay?

(3) What order?

Findings:

1. Point No.1 – In the affirmative

2. Point No.2 – In the affirmative

3. Point No.3 – As per final order.

Reasons

12. Heard the learned Advocates of rival parties.

13. The learned Advocate for the applicant relied upon the following Judgments: (1). Dinesh B.S. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1968.

(2) Laxmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 319

(3) ARCE Polymers Private Limited Vs. M/s. Alphine Pharmaceuticals

Private Limited and Ors. [Civil Appeal No.7372 of 2021 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3rd December, 2021].

14. The learned Advocate appearing for defendant Nos.1 and 2 relied upon the following Judgments:

(1) Brijesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 2014 Supreme Court 1612.

(2) Basawraj and Another Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2014 Supreme Court 746.

(3) Shivamma (Dead) By LRs Vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 1104.

(4) Smt. M. Subathra Vs. State Bank of India [M.A.(S.A) 31/2022 decided by Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai on 13th June, 2025].

15. The learned Advocate appearing for defendant No.3 relied upon the following Judgment: Gertred Chanda Vs. Havitat Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported in MANU/WB/0544/1993 As to Point Nos.1 to 3

16. It is the case of the applicant that it demanded details of auction sale by writing letters dated 24th October, 2019, 28th November, 2019 and 5th December, 2019 from defendant bank but it failed to provide the same. The Legal Notice dated 2nd January, 2020 calling details of auction sale was issued to defendant bank but even then it did not take heed of the same and did not provide details. At last applicant came to know the details of sale when it obtained

certified copy of Sale Certificate from the Office of Sub-Registrar Pandharpur, District Solapur on 31st January, 2020.

17. Further according to applicant, though news of sale of suit property was published in Newspapers dated 24th October, 2019, it being hearsay evidence is not considerable and no details are given in newspapers. Therefore, applicant could not challenge the sale of the suit property by filing Securitisation Application within limitation i.e. forty-five days from date of sale.

18. It is the case of the defendant bank as well as Auction Purchaser that applicant was having full knowledge of sale of suit property as news of the same was widely published in various newspapers dated 24th October, 2019. Further, applicant has not produced copy of application made to Sub-Registrar for obtaining certified copy of Sale Certificate to show that only on 31st January, 2020 it for the first time came to know about sale by reading certified copy of the Sale Certificate. Further, Commissioner of Sugar, Sakhar Sankul had called meeting of applicant and defendant bank and Auction Purchaser on 25th November, 2019 and directed defendant bank to produce details of sale to him i.e. Sugar Commissioner. At that time, applicant had come to know about details of the auction sale. Therefore, there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay and therefore, it has to be rejected.

19. Perused the record and documents produced by both the parties. Admittedly, suit property i.e. Sugar Factory has been sold on 25th

September, 2019 in pursuance of Sale Notice dated 6th September, 2019 by defendant bank to defendant No.3, Auction Purchaser and Sale Certificate was issued on 23rd October, 2019 which was registered on 20th November, 2019.

20. Though news of auction sale of suit property i.e. Sugar Factory of applicant was published in various newspapers dated 24th October, 2019, there is no concrete, prima facie, evidence that applicant had read said news in the newspaper. Anyhow, it is hearsay evidence. For a moment, if it is accepted that applicant came to know about sale of the suit property from news in the newspapers, details of sale are not provided in the newspapers. Per contra, the applicants by writing letters dated 24th October, 2019, 28th November, 2019 and 5th December, 2019 demanded details of auction sale of suit property from defendant bank but defendant bank failed to provide the same for the reasons best known to it. Even after service of legal notice dated 2nd January, 2020 demanding details of auction sale, the defendant bank neglected to provide the same to the applicant.

21. Though Commissioner of Sugar, Sakhar Sankul called meeting of applicant and defendant bank and Auction Purchaser on 25th November, 2019, it was for outstanding FRP Bills of sugarcane suppliers. Though Commissioner of Sugar directed defendant bank to produce details of sale of suit property, it was for Commissioner of Sugar. There is no prima facie evidence that copy of the details

of sale of suit property which was provided to Commissioner of Sugar was also provided to applicant.

22. This Court has experienced that in many cases secured creditor does not provide details of sale to borrower/owner of suit property sold in auction sale which constrained borrower/owner to move this Court for direction. For filing Securitisation Application challenging sale, details of sale are required. In the present case, defendant bank failed to provide details of sale despite letters and legal notice issued on behalf of applicant and this conduct demonstrates that it intentionally avoided to provide details of sale with a view that applicant would not get an opportunity to challenge the same by filing Securitisation Application within limitation. Non-providing details of sale by defendant bank to applicant on time demonstrates negligence and lethargy on its part for which defendant bank is equally responsible for causing delay for taking action regarding sale at the hands of applicant.

23. The borrower become helpless to challenge the sale by filing Securitisation Application unless he has details of sale in his hands to be provided from secured creditor. In the present case, same has happened. The applicant came to know about details of sale of suit property on 31st January, 2020 when he obtained certified copy of Sale Certificate from the Office of Sub-Registrar, Pandharpur and then filed Securitisation Application along with this delay

condonation application on 5th March, 2020.

24. The explanation of delay elucidated in the application appears to be bonafide and hence grounds for causing delay in filing Securitisation Application found to be sufficient to condone delay of 158 days (in fact 161 days). At the finale, it is to be noted that while dealing with delay condonation application pragmatic view should have to be taken. In the present case, the applicant is challenging sale in the Securitisation Application. If delay is condoned the defendants will get an opportunity to contest the Securitisation Application.

25. In view of these observations, I hold that application deserves to be allowed but subject to condition of payment of cost.

26. Before parting with Judgment, with great regards, I mention that Authorities cited supra by defendant bank and Auction Purchaser are not applicable to present case as facts in those cases turn on different points than facts of the present case. At the same time, I hold that Authorities cited supra by applicant are squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:

ORDER

A. Miscellaneous Application No.24/2020 is hereby allowed. B. Delay of 158 days (in fact 161 days) in filing

Securitisation Application is hereby condoned. C. The applicant shall pay cost of Rs.01 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) within two weeks from today. Out of said amount, the applicant shall pay Rs.50,000/- to defendant bank, Rs.25,000/- to Pune DRT Bar Association and remaining Rs.25,000/- to Pranimatra Animal Welfare Foundation. D. After payment of cost, Securitisation Application shall be registered. Pronounced in open Court

Place : Pune Date 27.08.2026

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