Dismissed

Sabhalok Builder Pvt. Ltd. v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

DRT22 Feb 2024MA/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar adjudicated an application seeking condonation of the 528-day delay in filing a Chamber Appeal against the rejection of a lie-in Motion. The court held that the applicant failed to provide cogent reasons for the delay, noting a history of inaction where the applicant had received multiple notices since 2009. Relying on the principle that statutes of limitation are statutes of peace and aid the vigilant, the court dismissed the application as barred by time.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sabhalok Builder Pvt. Ltd. versus Jammu and Kashmir Bank… — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA No.28/2024 in Chamber Appeal (D) No.210/2024

¶2

22/02/2024	Ex. No.	Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. *Roznama in MA No.28/2024*	Next date
		In *Chamber Appeal (D) No.210 of 2024* In *MA (L) No.239/2018* In *OA No.313/2009* *Sabhlok Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jammu &* *Kashmir Bank Ltd. and Ors.*
		Advocate appeared for the Applicant. Advocate J.B. Navlani appeared for the Respondent. 1. By way of the present MA, the Applicant prayed to condone the delay of 528 days in filing Chamber Appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant purchased the property i.e. Plot No.202, admeasuring about 300 sq. mtrs. in Sector 20, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 (“subject property”) from Mr. Premji Vijay Satra and Mr. Deepak Virambai Satra by a registered Tripartite Agreement dated 28.12.2006 and the Applicant is a registered owner of the subject property. He submits that the Applicant created mortgage over the subject property in favour of Religare Finvest Limited however, the Applicant was shocked and surprised when they noticed notice for proclamation of sale dated 08.03.2017 pasted on the

¶3

¶4

MA No.28/2024 in Chamber Appeal (D) No.210/2024

¶5

subject property. The said proclamation notice was issued in Transfer Recovery Proceeding No.1164/2016 issued pursuant to the order dated 31.10.2012 passed in OA No.313/2009 wherein it is alleged that the subject property was already mortgaged in favour of the Respondent No.1.

¶6

He submits that the in the year 2018, the Applicant filed MA (L) No.239/2018 through Advocate, against the Respondent to modify the judgment dated 31.10.2012 however, the Advocate failed to taken care of the matter and also did not inform to the Applicant about status of the matter. He submits that on enquiry by the Applicant, it found that the MA (L) No.239/2018 was declined on 03.08.2022 for want of removal of official objections. 4. He also submits that the Applicant was not aware of the date fixed for removal of office objection on 03.08.2022 or on any earlier dates and only on 12.02.2024 for the first time the Applicant came to know about the order dated 03.08.2022 and accordingly, the Applicant filed the Chamber Appeal thus, he prayed to condone the delay of 528 days in filing the Chamber Appeal.

¶7

He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Lachhiram Chudiwala (H.U.F.) Vs. Bank of Rajasthan Limited, 2007(1) Mh.L.J.,

¶8

¶9

MA No.28/2024 in Chamber Appeal (D) No.210/2024

¶10

Per contra , Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank strongly objected on the present MA and submits that the present MA is highly time barred and the same is liable to be dismissed. He submits that the Applicant failed to justify enormous delay in filing the Chamber Appeal for restoration of Misc. Application (L) No.239/2018. He relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and Anr. Vs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (14) SCC 81 and judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. 2017 SCC Online Del 8491.

¶11

He also submits that the Respondent pursuing its remedy for recovery of its dues since 2009 and the Applicant kept silence when the notices were issued in the Recovery Proceeding. It is only when Commissioner was appointed for taking possession of the subject property, the Applicant approached this Tribunal with flimsy ground that previous advocate did not inform about status of the matter. Thus, he submits that the present MA is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considered the submissions of both sides and perused the record.

¶12

Admittedly, by way of the present MA, the Applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 528 days in filing Chamber Appeal for restoration of the Misc. Application (L) No.239/2018. The said Misc.

¶13

¶14

MA No.28/2024 in Chamber Appeal (D) No.210/2024

¶15

Application was declined by Ld. Registrar on 03.08.2022 i.e. after more than 4 years for nonremoval of office objections and the Chamber Appeal is filed after the period of 1.5 years, against the order dated 03.08.2022 of Ld. Registrar. Further, the Applicant failed to justify the reason in delay for filing the Chamber Appeal.

¶16

For the foregoing reasons, it appears that Applicant has only motive to delay the recovery proceeding of the Respondent No.1 and did not file the Chamber Appeal within the time thus, the same is not maintainable as barred by limitation.

¶17

According to the Applicant, the Applicant came to know about the order dated 03.08.2022 only on 12.02.2024. The said contention of the Applicant is not acceptable as the averments made in the present MA itself shows that the Applicant was aware about the litigation pending with this Tribunal but they did not pursue the same, the reason best known to the Applicant.

¶18

There should be an end to litigation. The law of limitation proceeds upon the presumption that claim stands extinguished or ought to be held extinguished whenever they are not litigated within prescribed period. It is based upon the principles that vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subveniunt meaning the law aids the diligent and not the

¶19

¶20

MA No.28/2024 in Chamber Appeal (D) No.210/2024

¶21

indolent; a man who has negligently slept over his right for an undue length of time, will not be allowed to litigate in respect of those rights. 13. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajinder Singh and Other Vs. Santa Singh and Others (1973) 2 SCC 705 wherein it is observed that:- “The object of the law of limitation is to prevent disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence or laches.” (emphasis provided) 14. Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundalik Jalam Patil (Dead) by LRs Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr. has observed as under :-

¶22

“23. Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as `statutes of peace'. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order…” (emphasis supplied) 15. In view of the above circumstances, in my view, the Applicant failed to give any cogent reason for condonation of delay in the present MA.

¶23

¶24

MA No.28/2024 in Chamber Appeal (D) No.210/2024

¶25

Accordingly, the present MA for condonation of
delay is hereby dismissed. Resultantly, chamber
appeal is also dismissed being barred by limitation.
File be closed and consigned to the record.
PO
DRT-I

¶26

Sabhalok Builder Pvt. Ltd. v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sabhalok Builder Pvt. Ltd. v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus Shaikh Fareen Siraj

Ms Harshadrai and Sons and Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Manish P Gupta versus Asset Reconstruction Company

Bank of Baroda versus Her Complete Women

Nandakishore Soma Dhavade versus Can Fin Homes Ltd.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Sadhana Bharat Rai