Allowed

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

DRT23 Oct 2025MA/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a miscellaneous application dealt with the condonation of delay by an applicant in filing a securitisation application. The Appellant sought condonation of a delay of 182 days, arguing lack of notice and family exigencies as valid excuses, which the Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed in light of the Bombay High Court's direction for expedited disposal.

What did the court decide?

The miscellaneous application for condonation of delay was allowed to enable the registration and disposal of the Securitisation Application within the direction of the Bombay High Court.

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. versus Reliance… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, Presiding Officer DRT-II, Mumbai

¶2

Order In Miscellaneous Application No.11 of 2024

¶3

Sr. No.11 Decided on : 23.10.2025

¶4

M/s. Durhomes Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. V/s.

¶5

... APPLICANT/s

¶6

Reliance Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...RESPONDENT/s

¶7

Argued By –

¶8

Mr Siddharth Samantaray, Mr Vatsal Gosalia and Ms Suparna Holamagi, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr Rajesh Nagori and Mr Vinay Deshpande i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1. None for other Respondents.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The Applicant have preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 182 days in filing Securitisation Application (L) No.262 of 2023 against the order dated 01.07.2022 passed in Securitisation (D) Application No.262 of 2023.

¶12

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant is neither borrower nor mortgagor nor guarantor of any facility sanctioned by the Respondent No.1 but is a third party and was

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

unaware about the order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Magistrate Court, Thane in which the Applicant was not even made a party. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further submits that he came to know about the order dated 01.07.2022 when the notice dated 07.09.2022 was served upon the Applicant but was addressed to Respondent No.2. However, when the notice dated 10.08.2023 was served upon him on 19.10.2023, he was not able to get proper legal guidance as the father of Applicant was serious and hence, he could not file the S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023 within limitation and there was delay of 182 days.

¶15

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent opposed and submitted the M.A. filed by the Applicant is an abuse of law and devoid of merits and is required to be rejected as the Applicant has not made out any case to justify as to why the Applicant was not able to file the M.A. within limitation as stipulated under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 from the date of knowledge of the action taken by Respondent No.1 as the reason about not getting proper legal guidance as the father of the Applicant was serious and he expired is not a sufficient cause showing as to why the delay of 182 days was caused in filing of the S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023.

¶16

In rejoinder, Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that the actual delay is only of 112 days as the Applicant being neither a

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

borrower, guarantor, mortgagor or even being related to the loan granted by the Respondent No.1 could not have known of any action taken by the Respondent No.1 and further submitted that the Applicant for the first time learnt of the measures taken by the Respondent No.1 on 07.09.2022 and as the period of limitation came to an end on 22.10.2022 and the Applicant filed the S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023 on 11.02.2023, hence, there is delay of 112 days and not of 182 days. Ld. Advocate for the Applicant relied on several judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble DRAT, Delhi.

¶19

Heard the Ld. Advocates for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

This matter is expedited by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court to decide the S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023 within a period of six weeks from the date of Order brought to this Tribunal’s notice. This Tribunal came to know about the Order dated 23.09.2025 on 01.10.2025 by way of praecipe filed by the Applicant. The 2^nd & 3^rd Respondent’s Advocates before the Hon’ble High Court agreed to render full co-operation to decide this S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023, however, did not inform the Hon’ble High Court about the present M.A. for condonation of the delay for filing of the S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023 being still pending before this Tribunal.

¶21

Page 3 of 5

¶22

This Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in view of the the recent order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai, in the case of Mr Dinesh S/o Shankarao Deshmukh & Anr. Vs. Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Appeal No.65 of 2023.

¶23

In view of the direction passed by the Hon’ble High Court for the expeditious disposal of S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023, Misc. Application is allowed.

¶24

Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, MUMBAI

¶25

Nidhi

¶26

Page 4 of 5

¶27

23.10.2025	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.11 of 2024*	Next date
	Mr Siddharth Samantaray, Mr Vatsal Gosalia and Ms Suparna Holamagi, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Rajesh Nagori and Mr Vinay Deshpande i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1. None for other Respondents.
	Order in M.A. No.11 of 2024 passed separately. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. S.A. (D) No.262 of 2023 be registered after due compliance and be listed on 27.10.2025 for hearing.
nrb - 11	Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶28

Page 5 of 5

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durahomes Builders And Developer Pvt. Ltd. v. Reliance asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Manoj Prabhulal Jain versus Canara Bank

Hdfc Bank versus Puneet Cars Sales Private Limited

Anita Laxman Thota versus Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Bank of India versus Techmet Global India

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Sachin Kishanlal Bajaj

Mr Jaydeep Dhirubhai Dangodara versus Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Private Limited