Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
DR AJIT SUBHASH MANDE vs BANK OF MAHARASHTRA on 15 February 2025
Presented on:
13.12.2019
Registered on:
18.12.2019
Decided on:
15.02.2025
Duration:
Y M D
5 2 2
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.79/2019
1.
Dr. Ajit Subhash Mande
Age: Adult, Occ: Doctor
R/at : Row House No.33, Ishwar
Sharan, Main Road, Koregaon
Park, Pune – 411 011.
2.
Mrs. Smita Ajit Mande
Age:
Adult,
Occ:
Doctor/
Housewife
R/at : Row House No.33, Ishwar
Sharan, Main Road, Koregaon
Park, Pune – 411 011.
… Applicants
Versus
1.
Bank of Maharashtra
A
Banking
Company
incorporated under the Banking
Companies
(Acquisition
and
Transfer of Undertaking) Act,
1970 and having its Head Office
at “Lokmangal”, 1501, Shivaji
Nagar, Pune – 411 005 and one
of its Branch at Silver Oak,
Floriana
Estate,
S.No.16/1,
Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411 014
2.
Mrs.
Parineeta
Revansidha
Mitagare
R/at:
S.No.56,
ApleGhar
Society,
Opposite
Vanita
Medico,
Chandan
Nagar,
Kharadi, Pune – 411 014.
...Defendants
APPEARANCES
For the Applicants
Mr. Nandkumar Bharati - Advocate
For Defendant No.1
Mr. Vallabh S. Tokekar - Advocate
For Defendant No.2
Mrs. Smita Ghodke - Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Judgment
(Delivered on 15th February, 2025)
1. By this application the applicants have claimed to condone the delay of 1060 days in filing Securitisation Application against the defendant bank.
2. At the outset, I mention that facts relevant for condonation of delay will be dealt with in this Order. The relevant averments in the application can be summarized as under:
It is contended that in OA No.407/2014 Consent Decree dated 9th February, 2017 was passed. As per that Decree, the applicants were to redeem the suit property within three months but before the completion of that period the defendant bank sold out the suit property in auction to defendant No.2, Auction Purchaser. Therefore, the applicants were to file Securitisation Application.
3. It is further contended that Securitisation Application could not be filed within period of limitation because Mr. Subhash Baburao Mande, father of applicant was diagnosed for ADEM (Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelits) and was hospitalized from 5th July, 2017 to 7th October, 2017 and thereafter, from 25th November, 2017 to 7th March, 2018. There were no other members except applicant in the family to look after his father and take care of him.
4. Further, before filing of this application, Writ Petition in Hon’ble High Court was filed, which was dismissed on 14th December, 2017. More so, defendant No.1 Bank had filed Appeal before the Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai against Consent Decree which was dismissed on 21st August, 2019.
5. It is further contended that due to these grounds delay in filing Securitisation Application has been caused. The grounds for causing delay are sufficient to condone the same. Therefore, delay may be condoned.
In support of his contentions, the learned Advocate appearing for the applicants relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Aniruddh Singh Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. reported in (2024) ibclaw.in 30 HC.
6. The defendant No.1 Bank and defendant No.2, Auction Purchaser resisted the application by contending that grounds for condonation of delay are not sufficient. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.
7. 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.
8. Heard learned Advocates for all the parties. They have reiterated the facts mentioned in the Application and Reply, respectively.
[Kaur] (MA No.79/2019) Page 5 of 6
Reasons
As to Point Nos.1 and 2
9. Perused the documents. One of the grounds for condonation of delay which has been taken by the applicant is that his father was sick and hospitalized for some period by intervals and except applicant there was no member in the family to look after him. However, considering ailment of father, it is clear that applicant was not required to take care of his father full time as his father was not bedridden. Further, his father was admitted for short period in the year 2017 and 2018.
10. Further, another ground for condonation of delay taken by the applicants is that litigation in other Courts, particularly, in High Court and DRAT was pending which later on concluded. However, it is not the case of the applicants that he inadvertently had filed litigations in wrong Courts. Therefore, it was within his knowledge that Courts in which he has filed litigation were competent to decide issues in that litigation. Therefore, consumption of time for litigation in other Courts could not be said to sufficient cause to condone the delay.
11. Resultantly, I hold that grounds for condonation of delay in filing Securitisation Application mentioned in this application are not adequate to condone the delay. Therefore, application is liable for dismissal. Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER
A. The application is hereby dismissed. Pronounced in open Court
Place : Pune Date 15.02.2025 Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune