Dismissed

Prashant Pratap Ahir v. Hdfc Bank

DRT26 Aug 2024MA/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing a Securitization Application under the SARFAESI Act. The court found insufficient grounds, rejecting claims of health issues due to available mobility and alternative electronic filing options, despite prior High Court direction.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2022 is dismissed and the application is disposed of.

Prashant Pratap Ahir versus Hdfc Bank — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

Presented on: 22.09.2022 Registered on: 18.10.2022 Decided on: 26.08.2024 Duration: Y M D 01 11 04

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.54/2022.

¶3

Mr. Prashant Pratap Ahir R/at- Mahindra Society, Bunglow No.8, 121, Nagar Road, Yerwada, Pune- 411 006. Versus

¶4

1. HDFC Limited

¶5

Address- Annex Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.

¶6

… Applicant

¶7

2. HDFC Limited, Through its Authorized Officer, Having branch office atOffice No.7 & 8, 5^th Floor, Godrej Eternia- C, Wing-B, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411 005. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 –Deleted

¶8

Mr. Dinesh Jain

¶9

5. Auction Purchaser, Panchshil Towers, A1703, Kharadi, Pune-411 014.

¶10

Mrs. Aarti Prashant Ahir 6. R/at- Mahindra Society, Bunglow No.8, 121, Nagar Road, Yerwada, Pune- 411 006.

… Defendants

(MA No.54/2022)

Page 1 of 5

[ANIL]

APPEARANCES

For the Applicant For Defendant No.1 and 2

¶17

Advocate – Mrs. Aarti Pande Advocate – Mr. S.V. Mahajan

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Delivered on 26^th August, 2024)

¶20

The Applicant has filed present application for acceptance of condonation of delay and allowing the proceedings to be heard in the interest of justice to the applicant.

¶21

Defendant No.1 HDFC Finance Company appeared and resisted the application by filing say at Exh.12. Defendant Nos.5 & 6 are absent though served.

¶22

Heard both parties.

¶23

Perused the record. According to the applicant, when the Defendant Finance Company initiated action for sale of the suit property under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, the applicant had filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court in the year 2021, which has been disposed of by order dated 05.04.2022 with a direction to the applicant to approach DRT within six weeks. However, due to health issues, the applicant could not file Securitization Application within stipulated period but it is filed on 22.09.2022. Thus, there is delay caused due to health issues of the applicant. Hence, the application for condonation of delay in filing Securitization

(MA No.54/2022)

Page 2 of 5

[ANIL]

Application may be allowed.

¶28

According to contested Defendant Finance Company, HDFC Limited has been merged in HDFC Bank and the applicant has not made amendment accordingly and, therefore, the application is not maintainable.

¶29

Further, there is 221 days delay in filing the application and day to day delay has not been explained. Though the applicant was knowing the period stipulated for filing Securitization Application, he deliberately caused delay.

¶30

Further, sale of the suit property has been completed. In such circumstances, the application may be dismissed.

¶31

Following points arise for my determination and I record findings thereon as under:-

¶32

Points :–

¶33

(A)- Whether there is sufficient ground to condone the delay?

¶34

(B)- What order?

¶35

Findings :-

¶36

(A)- In the Negative.

¶37

(B)- Application is dismissed.

¶38

The learned Advocate for the applicant and defendant Finance Company reiterated the same facts in the arguments.

(MA No.54/2022)

Page 3 of 5

[ANIL]

Perused the documents.

¶43

Admittedly, the applicant had filed Writ Petition No.9455 of 2021 in Hon’ble Bombay High Court, challenging the action of defendant Finance Company initiated under SARFAESI Act, and the same was disposed of by order dated 05.04.2022 thereby granting liberty to the applicant to approach DRT within six weeks. Period of six weeks came to an end on mid of May 2022. The Securitization Application has been filed on 22.09.2022 alongwith this delay condonation application. It would mean that when the Hon’ble High Court passed order on 05.04.2022, the applicant was well known/aware the fact that Securitization Application was required to be filed within six weeks from that date. However, he failed to file the same.

¶44

According to the applicant, he was having some health issues and, therefore, he could not file Securitization Application within a period stipulated by the Hon’ble High Court by order passed in Writ Petition No.9455 of 2021. The medical certificates dated 02.08.2019 and 20.04.2023 of private medical consultants are produced alongwith application Exh.16. However, on perusal of nature of ailment mentioned therein, prima facie, it appears that the applicant was not bed-ridden, but he was able to move.

(MA No.54/2022)

Page 4 of 5

[ANIL]

Further, medical certificates had been issued for information purpose and not for any legal or banking purpose. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant was not so serious that he could not move to file Securitization Application, within a stipulated period.

¶49

Further, he could have approached Advocate through Electronic Mode in respect of filing Securitization Application within a stipulated period.

¶50

10 In view of these observations, I conclude that the grounds for condonation of delay are not sufficient and, therefore, the application is liable for dismissal. Hence, by answering these points accordingly, I Pass following order.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(A) Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2022 is hereby dismissed.

¶53

Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/Place: Pune (Dilip G. Murumkar) Date: 26.08.2024 Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune.

¶55

(MA No.54/2022)

¶56

Page 5 of 5

¶57

[ANIL]

Prashant Pratap Ahir v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Pratap Ahir v. Hdfc Bank

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

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Vitthal Shankar Ranavade, Prop. Laxmi Enterprises

Bank of Maharashtra versus Dada Pawar

Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Sachin Godambe

Central Bank of India versus Sampat Askat

State Bank of India versus M/S. Trimurti Stone Industries Prop. Mr. Rajan Waman Angane