Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Swati Purushottam Harne vs IDBI BANK on 25 May 2022
(npb)
Presented on:
03.03.2022
Registered on:
03.03.2022
Decided on:
25.05.2022
Duration:
Y M D
0 2 22
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
(Before Shri Dilip G Murumkar, Presiding Officer)
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.15/2022
Mrs. Swati Purushottam Harne
(Legal heir of Late Purushottam Harne)
Age-43, years, Occ:- Household, R/at:
Flat No.203, 2nd Floor, Rohit Palms,
North Wing, CTS No.3957, S.No.56/1,
56/2, Rahatani, Pune-411 017.
… Applicant
Versus
IDBI Bank Limited,
A Banking Company duly registered
as per provisions of the Companies
Act, 2013 Having its branch: At Retail
Recovery, Zonal Office Pune, IDBI
House,
3rd
Floor,
Dnayaneshwar
Paduka
Chowk,
F
C
Road,
Shivajinagar, Pune- 411 005.
… Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant
Mr. Prashant M. Maindargi -
Advocate
For Respondent
Mr.
Narayan
L
Khamkar
-
Advocate
(npb)
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 25th May, 2022)
1. The applicant has filed this Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay of 673 (six hundred seventy-three) days in filing the Securitization Application challenging measures taken by the respondent of the secured asset. The facts in the application can be summarized as under:
2. The applicant wish to challenge measures taken by respondent Bank under provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. The District Magistrate passed impugned order dated 9th March, 2020 under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. The said order is not served upon the applicant. Thereafter, Taluka Magistrate sent Notice stating that he is going to take possession of suit property on 15th February, 2022. Thereafter, applicant obtained documents and handed over to her Advocate and time consumed for the same. Thus, there is delay of 673 days in filing the Securitisation Application. Therefore, the application may be granted and thereby condone the delay.
3. The learned Advocate for the respondent Bank has filed Affidavit in Reply (Exhibit-8) thereby opposing the
(npb)
application, stating that no grounds are made out by the applicant to condone the delay and the applicant filed by the applicant be dismissed with cost.
4. I have heard arguments of both parties.
5. While dealing with an application for delay condonation, the Court should take liberal/pragmatic view. If delay is condoned, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent Bank as it would get an opportunity to contest main Application. Per contra, if application is rejected, the applicant would lose her right to challenge measures taken by respondent Bank under SARFAESI Act and thus, prejudice would be caused to her. Hence, the application deserves to be allowed as grounds mentioned in the application are suffice to condone the delay.
6. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(A) Miscellaneous Application No.15/2022 is allowed. (B) Delay of 673 (six hundred seventy-three) Days in filing the Securitization Application is hereby condoned subject to cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees
(npb)
Three Thousand only) to be paid to `Prime Minister’s Relief Fund’ within a week. (C) Registrar is directed to register the Securitisation Application as per rules after payment of costs. (D) Pronounced in open Court.
Sd/- (Dilip G Murumkar) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune