Smt. Kiran Jha v. Mona Yadav and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
This common order decided three appeals challenging a lower tribunal's allowance of delay in filing a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the borrower's delay was deliberate due to active participation in prior litigation and issued writs before the wrong forum, thus refusing to exclude the litigation period.
What did the court decide?
The impugned orders allowing condonation of delay are set aside, and Section 17 application dismissed. Appeal No. 392/2021 allowed.
IN DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
Appeal Dy. No. 186/2020
Smt. Kiran Jha, W/o Shri H. S. Jha, R/o H.No. 7 (D) Paramount Villa, Shyamla Hills, District Bhopal (M.P.)-462010.
……….....……………………...………………………………………………..Appellant
Versus
- Smt. Mona Yadav, W/o Shri Mohan Yadav, Prop.- Ganesh Warehouse,
- Shri Mohan Yadav, S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, Both R/o-M-116, Veena Nagar, Indore (M.P.), Pin-452003.
- Authorized Officer, Central Bank Of India, Pipariya Branch, District-Hoshangabad (M.P.), Pin Code:-461775
- The Regional Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, 9 Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.), Pin Code462011
- Tehsildar, Sohagpur Sub-Division, District-Hoshangabad (M.P.) Pin Code-461001
- The Registrar, Documents and Assurances, Sub Division, Sohagpur (M.P.) Pin Code-461771
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court wrongly excluded the period consumed in filing writs before the High Court while condoning delay under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the applicant's delay in filing the security application was deliberate and intentional given their participation in prior proceedings.
Whether the application for extension of time to deposit cost was maintainable when the original order was set aside.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Smt. Kiran Jha
- respondent
Central Bank of India
- respondent
Mona Yadav
- appellant
Smt. Mona Yadav
- respondent
Shri Mohan Yadav
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court