Dismissed

Mr Jadhav Datta Somnath v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

DRT25 Jul 2023SA/145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed an application and interim application challenging enforcement notices under the SARFAESI Act, holding that the petition was barred by limitation as it was filed well beyond the 45-day period without a condonation application.

What did the court decide?

Restraint from taking further steps pursuant to the demand notice was refused as the application was dismissed as time-barred.

Mr Jadhav Datta Somnath versus Housing Development Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

25/07/2023	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT- 1, Mumbai. *Roznama in SA 145 of 2023* *Mr. Jadhav Datta Somnath Vs Housing* *Development Finance Corporation Limited*	Next date
		Advocate Ms. Vidya Kamble appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Shreesh Oak i/b SC Legal appeared for the Respondent. IA No. 2460/2023 1. By way of the present IA, the Applicant is praying to restrain the Respondent from taking any further steps in pursuance to the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) and notice under Section 13(4) read with Section 14 in respect to the House No. 228, At Ridghar, Post Morbe, Taluka: Panvel, District Raigad 410206
		(hereinafter referred as “property in question”). 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent raised objection on the maintainability of the present SA and submits that the same is barred by limitation. He submits that the Applicant himself has written letters to the different

¶2

authorities on 17/05/2023 and raised objection on the action taken by the Respondent. He also submits that the Applicant is well aware about the order of Ld. District Magistrate dated 04/10/2020 however, the Applicant challenged the same on 24/07/2023 therefore, he submits that the objection regarding the order of Ld. District Magistrate as well as further notices are barred by limitation and no condonation of delay application is filed by the Applicant alongwith the present SA thus, he submits that the present SA alongwith IA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant contends that Applicant was behind the bar therefore he cannot peruse the legal remedies available to him. She also submits that Applicant is not aware about the DRTs therefore, the Applicant has written letters to different authorities regarding the action taken by the Respondent. Thus, she submits that the present SA is within the limitation and in case there is any delay, the same may be condoned. She also submits that the Applicant by profession is a teacher however, presently he is not in service as he was behind the bar in a

¶3

fake case. Subsequently, the Applicant was acquitted from the Hon’ble High Court, thus, she submits that Applicant may be allowed some reasonable time to deposit dues of the Respondent.

¶4

In response, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent strongly objected to the contention of the Applicant and contends that Applicant did not deposit any amount. Further, it is not being informed by the Applicant how the Applicant will deposit the dues thus, he submits that the present SA as well as IA may be dismissed.

¶5

Looking to the fact that the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was issued on 08/04/2013 thus, the account was defaulted since more than 10 years ago however, the Applicant did not make any effort to deposit the due of Respondent. Further, as rightly stated by Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Applicant was well aware about the action taken by the Respondent and he has already written letters to different authorities (Exh “E–Colly” of the SA) and raised objection on the action taken by the Respondent. However, the present SA is

¶6

filed on 24/07/2023 therefore, the same is beyond the period of 45 days and no condonation of delay application is filed by the Applicant.

¶7

In view of the above facts, the present SA is not maintainable as the same is barred by limitation and thus, the present SA as well as the IA are hereby dismissed accordingly. File be closed and consigned to record room.

¶8

P.O. DRT-I

¶9

Sgj/-5

Mr Jadhav Datta Somnath v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jadhav Datta Somnath v. Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Ranjit

Canara Bank versus Liberty chemist

geomanage consultancy services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Co.

Idbi Bank versus Girish Mohan Nerurkar

Idbi Bank versus Sukanta

State Bank of India versus Vinit