In M.A. No.102 of 2025, the court allowed the application to condone delay in filing a Securitisation Application, citing lack of sufficient funds as a reason.
M.A. No.102 of 2025 allowed with costs; S.A. No.1459 of 2025 listed for hearing on 03.12.2025 subject to registration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| 27.11.2025 | Exh | Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.102 of 2025 |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Mr Imran M. Shaikh, Mr Jaazib Aziz and Ms Sana Siddiquee, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Mahesh Karule i/b Mr Nilesh Pendurkar, Advocate for Respondent. Reply affidavit (exhibit-7) filed by Ld. Advocate for Respondent. Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties in M.A. No.102 of 2025. The Applicants have preferred this Misc. Application to condone the delay of 35 days in filing the Securitisation Application (D) No.1459 of 2025. During the arguments, Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants received the notice for possession on 14.06.2025 from the Respondent’s advocate and kept it ready for filing the S.A. However, due to some difficulties, the Applicant could not have time to visit advocate’s office at Fort for affirmation and filing the S.A. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants further submitted that the S.A. was supposed to be filed on or before 29.07.2025 and there was not any intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the Applicants in not filing the S.A. within the time as per law. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, the Applicants could not file the S.A. on time. Hence, prays to condone the delay in filing S.A. (D) No.1459 |
Page 1 of 2
| rst - 02 | of 2025. Ld. Advocate for Respondent submitted that the delay is for 40 days and no sufficient and cogent reasons are made out by the Applicants for condoning the delay. Hence, prays for condoning the delay should be rejected. Heard both Ld. Advocates for the parties and perused the records. During the arguments, Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the Applicant was not having sufficient amount at relevant time, so, could not file S.A. timely. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, M.A. No.102 of 2025 is allowed subject to cost quantified in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable to DRT Bar Association for purchase of books and periodicals. S.A. (D) No.1459 of 2025 to be put up for hearing on 03.12.2025 subject to registration and removal of objection. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II |
Closed |
|---|
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 35 to 40 days in filing the Securitisation Application is condonable.
Applicant
Respondent
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
