Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
ASHOK KRISHNARAO BORKAR vs TATA CAPITAL HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED on 27 March 2025
Presented on:
30.12.2024
Registered on:
30.12.2024
Decided on:
27.03.2025
Duration:
Y M D
- 2 28
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.39/2024
Mr. Ashok Krishnarao Borkar
Adult, Indian
R/at: Plot No.13, Vivek Nagar,
S.No.24/2,
Shreedhar
Nagar
Society, Satara Road, Hemy Still
Mage,
Dhankawdi,
Pune – 412 043.
… Applicant
Versus
1.
TATA Capital Housing Finance
Ltd.,
Avaanti
Residence,
CTS
No.431/195, 431/196, Final Plot
No.37/B1+B2,
Abhinav
Kala
Mahavidyalaya Chowk, Tilak
Road, Pune-411 002.
2.
Mrs. Anita Ashok Borkar
Adult, Housewife
R/at: Plot No.13, Vivek Nagar,
S.No.24/2,
Shreedhar
Nagar
Society, Satara Road, Hemy Still
Mage, Dhankawdi, Pune
...Defendants
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant
Mr. Nilesh P. Zalte - Advocate
For Defendant No.1
Mrs. Sudha Koloti - 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 27th March, 2025)
1. By this application the applicants have claimed to condone the delay of 04 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 there is delay of four days in filing the Securitisation Application. It is contended that he has no knowledge of law and his father was ill and due to these grounds delay in filing Securitisation Application has been caused. Therefore, delay may be condoned
3. The defendant No.1 Bank resisted the application by contending that grounds for condonation of delay are not sufficient and there is a delay of more than 500 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 negative.
2. Point No.2 – As per final order.
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.
Reasons
As to Point Nos.1 and 2
6. Perused the documents. One of the grounds for condonation of delay which has been taken by the applicant is that he is not having knowledge of law but not having knowledge of law is not an excuse.
7. Further, another ground for condonation of delay taken by the applicants is that his father was ill but on perusal of medical papers annexed to the application, it appears that applicant was not needed to serve for his father whole day. Therefore, it could not be said to be sufficient cause to condone the delay.
8. Further, from the record it reveals that the District Magistrate passed the order on 25th May, 2023 and the applicant has filed the Securitisation Application on 3rd December, 2024. Hence, there is delay of more than 500 days. Therefore, in my opinion grounds 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 27.03.2025 Sd/- (Dilip G. Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune