Jagdish SM Murlidhar Rathod vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 8 October 2025

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 08th October, 2025)

1. This M.A. No. 23/2019 is filed by one Dr. Jagdish S/o Murlidhar Rathod. against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Respondent Nos. 1 is the State Bank of India and the respondent No.2 is a Private Limited company. The applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 84 days excluding statutory period of 45 days, if computed from 26.06.2018 in filing the Securitisation Application under section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act.

Brief facts of the application are as under:

2. The applicant submits that he is a Medical Practitioner and resident of Kalyan. He is a third party as far as loan transaction for the recovery of which measures are initiated by the respondent No.1 bank under the SARFAESI Act against the said property. The applicant is in actual physical possession of the said property since September 2016 as a bonafide purchaser thereof. The respondent No.2 is a builder and developer and is engaged in construction activities and carrying on its business in the name and style as “R.K. Constro Project Pvt. Ltd.” .

3. The applicant further submitted that the suit property was purchased by him from the respondent No.2 vide registered sale deed bearing Day Book Sr. No.3683/2016 dated 12.09.2016 before the Sub-Registrar No.3 Aurangabad. The said sale deed has been executed in pursuance to the registered agreement to sale bearing Day Book Serial No.717 dated 19.03.2015 duly registered with the Office of Sub-Registrar No.6.

4. The applicant further submitted that the respondent bank has sanctioned Housing Loan to him on 19.03.2025 for an amount of Rs.7,27,000/- for purchasing the alleged property from the respondent No.2. At the time of sanctioning loan to the applicant, the respondent No.1 bank was thoroughly already aware of the fact that it had sanctioned Project Loan to the respondent No.2 for carrying out construction of said project and the said flat property was mortgaged with the respondent No.1 bank alongwith other properties in the said project. The said information was not shared by the present respondent No.1 bank with the present applicant. The respondent No.1 bank has completed documentation work for obtaining security of the said property by way of creating mortgage of the said property from the present applicant. The applicant has relied upon the security documents e.g. Memorandum of Loan Agreement, memorandum of Deposit, Tripartite Agreement, Letter address by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 bearing ref:RKCPPL/2014-15/4B/10-09/1162 etc. The said property of the present applicant has been given as a security by way of mortgage by the present applicant to the respondent bank for securing his loan amount and not for securing the loan of the respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1 bank. The measures taken by the respondent bank under the SARFAESI Act against the property are for the recovery of loan dues of the respondent No.2. The measures of taking possession of the said property on 26.06.2018 initiated by the respondent No.1 bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

5. It is further submitted by the applicant that he has paid the loan installment regularly and maintained his loan account as standard. He is in serve with a foreign based organization and is required to frequently go out of India in connection with his job responsibilities. He was out of India for the period 22-01-2018 to 07-03-2018, 16-04-2018 to 31-05-2018, 09-07-2018 to 04-09-2018. On 23-09-2018 the applicant travelled from Kalyan to Aurangabad to visit the said property and to meet his father-in-law at Aurangabad. On 24-09-2018 when he had been to the said property for routine inspection, it was noticed that a Possession Notice dated 26-06-2018 has been pasted at the conspicuous place of the said property and the symbolic possession has been taken by the respondent No.1 bank through its Authorised Officer.

6. The applicant again approached the respondent bank on 25-09-2018 and handed over the copy of the registered sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the applicant. But there was no respondent from the respondent bank. The applicant further submitted that he has written a letter to the respondent No.1 bank requesting to provide the details of measures i.e. notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and creation of mortgage etc. taken by the respondent No.1 bank in respect of loan transaction of the respondent No.2. The applicant got knowledge on 04.10.2018 when the bank replied to the applicant about the publication of the Possession Notice of the said property which was published in Times of India on 29.06.2018 Aurangabad. He took legal advice from the Advocate on

06.10.2018.

7. The applicant further submitted that the present MA filed on 02.11.2018 is well within limitation i.e. within 45 days from the date of knowledge about such measures of taking over possession. The delay caused is of 84 days is unintentional delay and needs to be condoned in the interest of justice.

8. The respondent No.1 bank appeared in the matter and filed its Say Exhibit-12. It is submitted by the respondent No.1 bank that the delay is not genuine, reasonable, considerate and not explained properly and thus MA deserve no consideration. The respondent No.1 has issued Possession Notice on 26.06.2018 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by adverting to the legal and procedural mandate, prescribed under the Act of 2002. The contention of the applicant that on 06.10.2018 he took legal advice from the Advocate cannot be considered because the said possession notice was published on 26.06.2018 in the newspaper Daily Times of India, Aurangabad edition which has a wide circulation and after near about 4 months, the applicant realized that such notice was published. The applicant made statement according to his whims and fancies and it is not in consonance with the settled principle of law. The reasons quoted for the delay caused in taking up Securitisation Application needs no consideration. It is a matter of record that the bank has taken measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by taking the symbolic possession of the property and has complied with the statutory obligation cast on it. Thus, it is required to be dismissed. The respondent No.1 bank prayed for rejection of the MA with costs and it may be permitted to continue with the securitization action.

9. I have heard argument of the learned Advocate for the applicant and the respondent No.1 bank.

10. In my view this M.A. No. 23/2019 needs to be allowed by condoning the delay of 84 days as prayed excluding the statutory period of 45 days computed from 26.06.2018 caused in filing the Securitisation Application and the respondent bank failed to counter the factual position.

11. Hence, I pass the following order.

ORDER

(A) M.A. No 23 of 2019 for condonation of delay is allowed.

(B) Registry of DRT, Aurangabad is directed to register the Securitisation Application filed by the applicant as per rule. (C) No Order as to costs. Pronounced in open Court. Sd/- Date : 08.10.2025. (Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad.