Dismissed

Mr Gajanand Rathore v. Srg Housing Finance Limited

DRT9 Mar 2023SA/214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitization application under the SARFAESI Act, the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application as time-barred. The court held that the applicant's delay in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order was intentional and not bona fide, rendering the application devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; securitization application disposed of as time-barred.

Mr Gajanand Rathore versus Srg Housing Finance Limited — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

SA/214/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.- 214/2022

¶5

MR. GAJANAND RATHORE

¶6

S/o Mr. Rampal Rathore,

¶7

Ward No. 02, Laxmi Nath Mandir ke aage wali gali,] Adeela, Kapren, K. Patan, District – Bundi – 323301 (Raj.)

¶8

………Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

SRG HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED

¶11

321, S.M. Lodha Complex, Near Shastri Circle, Udaipur313001 Rajasthan

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

Counsel –

¶14

Sh. R.N. Vijay, Ld. counsel for Applicant

¶15

Sh. Alok Garg, Ld. counsel for Respondent

¶16

(Final Order)

¶17

(09.03.2023)

¶18

This Securitization Application was filed on 20.04.2022.

¶19

Copy of Demand Notice dt. 22.07.2020 is at Annexure-A/1, Certified copy of Order U/s 14 passed by Ld. District Magistrate, Bundi dt. 08.02.2022 is filed at Annexure-A/2 and this certified copy was applied and obtained on 18.04.2022.

¶20

As per grounds for condonation of delay, it is claimed that as per Order of Hon’ble Apex Court dt. 23.03.2020, 06.05.2020, 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 10.01.2022 limitation period was extended and as the Applicant was suffering from various disease, including Heart disease, so delay was caused and so it was argued that delay is bonafide, not intentional, and is required to be condoned.

¶21

¶22

SA/214/2022

¶23

Ld. counsel for the Respondent FI, while objecting the prayer of SA Applicant argued that each and every fact/proceedings were well within the knowledge of SA Applicant but he failed to file SA within limitation and so the SA is time barred.

¶24

Ld. counsel referred para 3 of the Order U/s 14 of the Act of 2002 dt. 08.02.2022 and argued that the SA Applicant appeared in the said proceedings, Applicant filed reply, order was passed his presence but he applied and obtained certified copy of the same after 45 days i.e. on 18.04.2022, so, the delay is intentional and is not required to be condoned.

¶25

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶26

Finally, the issue of knowledge of proceedings taken by Respondent FI, under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, is to be seen.

¶27

It is admitted that Demand Notice dt. 20.07.2020, was served upon the present SA Applicant.

¶28

From following para of Order U/s 14 dt. 08.02.2022, it is clear that on two occasions, Ld. District Magistrate, Bundi, gave opportunity to SA Applicant to appear and file their objections, if any but Applicant failed to do so and finally on 12.01.2022, SA Applicant filed objections, admitted the fact that they availed credit facility and default was committed. For ready reference, para of Order is reproduced hereasunder –

¶29

” ब सपर प प ब र र 3( 2 ) 22.07.2020 र स स , स प ई र र स. आर. स स 321 स. . , स प र (र 0)-302004 र प 11.08.2021 स ब स र स ई 04.10.2021 स ब र स प : / 2020/22421-25 : 21.09 2021 र . प स प स ई : 27.10.2021 स ब र स प : / 2021/24198-99 08.10.2021

¶30

¶31

SA/214/2022

¶32

र र स ब 33 प : 27.10.2021 12.01.2022 र र स.आर. . स स स 2018 14,00,000/- प ऋ स.आर. . स स र स र 2018 ऋ स ई स र ऋ र 28938/- प स ब स 120 र स स 14 र र , आ र ,स , , र , प स र ई प स र ऋ और ऋ ब ब र र आ स ब ब 19 र स स सर र र र और आ ब र ई और प ई , र प और स र स पर र प ऋ प र पर र ब र ब और प स प , स र स र ब ऋ र स र प र स ई ई प , , स र र gsrq fuosnu

¶33

So, it is crystal clear that the SA Applicant appeared before District Magistrate, Bundi Order dt. 08.02.2022, was well within their knowledge and limitation started from 09.02.2022, so SA was required to be filed within 45 days from 09.02.2022 i.e. latest by 27.03.2023 but Applicant applied for certified copy of Order on 18.04.2022, so, it is clear that the application for obtaining certified copy itself was delayed and so the delay is not bonafide and intentional.

¶34

The SA Applicant is also not entitled for any benefit from the Order dt. 10.01.2022, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court because, the cause of action arises on 08.02.2022, all the proceedings, were well within the

¶35

¶36

SA/214/2022

¶37

knowledge of SA Applicant but as the delay was caused in obtaining certified copy of Order U/s 14 after mandatory time frame of 45 days, so delay cannot be said as a bonafide delay.

¶38

Accordingly, Application U/s 5 of the Limitation Act, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.

¶39

Accordingly, the SA stands disposed of as dismissed being barred by limitation. Copy of the order be given free to the parties concerned. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶40

(Vivek Saxena) Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

Mr Gajanand Rathore v. Srg Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Gajanand Rathore v. Srg Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr Anish Thomas

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S D.M. Construction Company

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Brijendra Pandey

Bank of Baroda versus Mr Ram Gopal Verma

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Holydrops Organic Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Mr Sunil Kumar Singh