Allowed

Mr Gaurav Ravindra Khochare v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

DRT8 Aug 2022MA/34/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of a 22-day delay in filing an application under Section 17 of the Securitization and Acquisition of Assets and Disposal of Assets Act. The court rejected the respondents' plea of non-maintainability, relying on elected precedent that such applications are maintainable for aggrieved persons.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing the application under Section 17 of the Act is allowed.

Mr Gaurav Ravindra Khochare versus Encore Asset Reconstruction… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

Before Arun Kumar Singal, Presiding Officer DRT - Ill, Vashi, Navi Mumbai.

¶2

M.A. No. 34 of 2022

¶3

M.A. Instituted on^30.06.2022 Decided on 08.08.2022

¶4

M. Gaurav Ravindra Khochare & Anr.

¶5

V/s

¶6

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. i

¶7

Arared Bv

¶8

¥_S.Teja.1Shav€3n,,c&ng_elfo`

¶9

or Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane for

¶10

#eRfe¥kp[ho:i:s:ai#oong

¶11

ORDER

¶12

mine shall dispose of the Miscellaneous No. 34 of 2022 for condonation of delay.L i ),!'

¶13

There is a delay of 22 days in filing the Application and according to Ld. Counsel for the Applicants, this delay is not intentional but due to the fact that the Respondent Bank took Jf)ossession of the secured assets of the

¶14

lli, WV\

¶15

ffing-"9JL

¶16

Applicants on 15.03.2022 and thereafter the Applicants i communicated with the Respondent No. 1 by e-mail dt. 22.03.2022 stating that Respondent No. 1 has taken the physical possession of the suit property on 15.03.2022 which was not justified to which the Applicanja received the Reply from Respondent No. 1 dt. 28.0 the full consideration was not made#bprg time period specified in had been cancelled and t

¶17

to the sale forfeited''.

¶18

iate steps as he was 3. The Applicants could under Sec. 17 of the layman and ct act before th thereafter the Applicants and documents which ar to the Advocate with instruction to I application and thereafter the Advocate the same and accordingly the present was filed on 23.05.2022.

¶19

The Applicants could

¶20

Also according to Applicants the mother of the Applicant got hospitalised and heavy expenses were incurred by the Applicant and Applicant could not arrange the funds for the court fee of this Securitization Application and

¶21

I;!--\,-`, Of5}c3S82j*|

¶22

Application is supported with the Affidavit. h these JI premises,Applicanthassoughtforcondoningthedelay.

¶23

In reply, tht Respondents have submitted that the F application filed by the Applicants is misconceived andrm contrary to applicable law and is liable to

¶24

non-maintainable. Since the

¶25

approach this Tribunal provided under the Securitisation Application

¶26

present

¶27

the parties, this 6. After hearing the respng [s have locus to Tribunal is of view of law laid down in seek condona. Nabi Hasan, Proprietor Nys. R. T. Authorised Officer-Can-Chief Manager, (2019) tbctav.in 43 HC Of Patna, in Civil ds4ction Case No. 17999 Of 2017 decided on -v#hedto a nd in that case it was held that "T71crypersoninchadingaborrowerund e rsechonl7 re777edy

¶28

ty(rvvw.

¶29

on-DTB-pe~

¶30

of the Act is in response to the actions and measures taken by the secured creditor through an application which is in the nature of chjections to the action taken by the secured creditor. The provisions Of Sections 4 to 24 Of the Lwitation Act are

¶31

appitcable to the proceedings to be initiated by any person aggrieved inchading a borrower before the Debt Recovery Trivunal under Section 17 Of the Act" . So, this aLpp+icaLfior\ for condonation of delay is maintainable.

¶32

It is the plea of the Applicants that he is some time was consumed in collecting hichiifee€ame thereafter arranging funds to pay mother, difficult due to sudden in8 it more wherein, huge expenditu fee and some difficult for the Applicarft;s time was consumed application by the advocate. 8. The are supported with the e plea of the Respondent that each and of delay is to be explained but it is settled law court should not adopt a pedantic approach and in this case, grounds taken by the Applicants for delayed filing of Securitisation Application are sufficient to Vnv\ Gj os@tsr2a>~1 condone the delay as the application is supported With Affidavit and no Counter Affidavit has been filed by the

¶33

. I --©'

¶34

Respondent No. 1 to contradict the plea taken by the Applicants. So, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Application in hand is allowed.

¶35

the case. 10. File be sent to the Registrar for registration of

¶36

11.
TheRespondentsshallfileReplytopen±nap
asEfic`¥
AppiicationandRep_1_y_t_O_s^e_c_ur.±ti:aseiap
filed on or before 09.09.2022 opy be
served to the counsel for

¶37

Now to come up on
1266 of 2022.

¶38

on I.A. No.

¶39

,;!.-.-,--=`. ketJ-Vvq,<br>P.O.
DRT - Ill

Mr Gaurav Ravindra Khochare v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Gaurav Ravindra Khochare v. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Enkay Castle Represented through Its Proprietor Mr N K Bhupeshbabu versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd.

Carl Exim Private Limited versus Corporation Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Sachin Karbhari Shinde

State Bank of India versus Kordial Modular Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Praveen Prabhakaran Earully versus Hdfc Bank

Sainath and Com Prop Sundeep More and Seema More versus Dcb Bank Limited