Dismissed

Amol Kashinath Gawade v. Union Bank of India

DRT8 Apr 2025MA/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Securitisation Application challenging a sale was dismissed. The tribunal found that the applicants alleged medical emergencies involving their father and a fracture were not adequate grounds to justify a 97-day delay. Evidence showed the applicants were capable of filing an objection to revenue mutation, negating their claim of inaction.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in filing Securitisation Application is dismissed.

Amol Kashinath Gawade versus Union Bank of India — Money Laundering | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 25.03.2025 Registered on: 26.03.2025 Decided on: 08.04.2025 Duration: Y M D -- - 13

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.15/2025

¶3

Mr. Amol Kashinath Gawade Age: Adult, Occupation : NA R/at : Near Sidhyanchalam Anad, Gurukal, Gat No.730 at PO Wadebolhai, Mangalsmruti, Haveli, Pune – 412 207.

¶4

Mrs. Sheetal Amol Gawade Age: Adult, Occupation : NA R/at : Near Sidhyanchalam Anad, Gurukal, Gat No.730 at PO Wadebolhai, Mangalsmruti, Haveli, Pune – 412 207.

¶5

… Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India (Asset Recovery Branch) Having its Office at : Suyog Plaza, 1^st Floor, 1278, Jangli Maharaj Road, Pune – 411 004.

¶8

Mr. Anil Ankush Pawar Age : Adult, Occ: NA

¶9

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 1 of 7

¶10

R/at : House No.281, Chaufula Manjari Road, Taluka Haveli, Kolwadi, Pune – 412 207. 3. Mr. Bhor Mayur Dattatray Age : Adult, Occupation : NA R/at : Room No.22, Atharva Complex, Kesnand Road, Wagholi,, Pune – 412 207. ...Defendants

¶11

APPEARANCES

¶12

For the Applicant Mr. Ronak Shah - Advocate For Defendant No.1 Mr. Prashant P. Deshpande - Advocate

¶13

Judgment

¶14

(Delivered on 8^th April, 2025)

¶15

By this application the applicants have claimed to condone the delay of 97 days in filing Securitisation Application against the defendant bank.

¶16

The averments in the application can be summarized as under:

¶17

It is contended by the applicants that they came to know by Reply Notice dated 25^th February, 2025 of the defendant bank that on 31^st October, 2024 Sale Certificate of secured asset has been registered by the defendant bank in favour of Auction Purchaser. There is delay of 97 days in filing Securitisation Application. The delay has been

¶18

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 2 of 7

¶19

caused on the following grounds:

¶20

In June, 2024 Mr. Kashinath Gawade, father of the applicant No.1 had “Stroke” and since then till February, 2025 he was suffering from severe medical conditions including Diabetes, Mellitus which required continuous treatment and hospitalization. The medical emergencies of the father significantly impaired the applicant’s ability to manage legal matters, as the condition involved constant medical supervision.

¶21

Further, on 27^th December, 2024 the applicant No.1 suffered severe injury including broken elbow bone as he was performing daily chores at home and was hospitalized for medical treatment till 30^th December, 2024. Thereafter, he was advised by Doctor to take bed rest with less/no physical movements.

¶22

Due to these medical situations Securitisation Application could not be filed challenging the sale of secured asset within 45 days from registration of Sale Certificate on 31^st October, 2024. The period of limitation ended on 14^th December, 2024 but Securitisation Application is filed on 22^nd March, 2025. Thus, there is delay of 97 days in filing

¶23

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 3 of 7

¶24

Securitisation Application.

¶25

On the above mentioned grounds, the applicants pray for granting application by condoning delay of 97 days in filing Securitisation Application.

¶26

The defendant No.1 Bank by filing Reply (Exhibit-7) resisted the application. It is contended that though applicants were having knowledge of measures taken by defendant bank under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, they slept over their rights to challenge the sale by filing Securitisation Application within limitation period. The grounds for causing delay in filing Securitisation Application are not adequate and therefore, application may be rejected.

¶27

The following points arise for my determination and I record my findings as under:

¶28

(1) Whether there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay?

¶29

(2) What order?

¶30

Findings:

¶31

Point No.1 – In the negative.

¶32

Point No.2 – As per final order.

¶33

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 4 of 7

¶34

Reasons

¶35

Heard both the parties. The learned Advocates for both the parties reiterated facts mentioned in the application and reply, respectively.

¶36

As to Point Nos.1 and 2

¶37

Perused the documents. According to the applicants, from June, 2024 Mr. Kashinath Gawade, father of applicant No.1 had “Stroke” and since then till February, 2025 was also suffering from severe medical conditions including Diabetes, Mellitus which required continuous treatment and hospitalization. Due to his medical emergencies, Securitisation Application could not be filed within limitation period as condition of father involved constant medical supervision.

¶38

In support applicants have relied on Medical Certificate of Mr. Kashinath Gawade. Though, the said Certificate shows that he had Stroke, it is silent about that he was advised to take bed rest. Further, the said Medical Certificate shows that Mr. Kashinath Gawade required 24hrs medical attendant family member since June, 2024 till February, 2025. However, since Mr. Kashinath Gawade,

¶39

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 5 of 7

¶40

father of applicant No.1 was not bed-ridden; it was not required to remain the applicants with him for 24hrs. Only duty of applicants was to supervise and administration of drugs to Mr. Kashinath Gawade, father of applicant No.1 timely as per schedule prescribed by the Doctor.

¶41

Most pertinent is that the defendant bank has produced copy of Complaint/Objection letter made to Gram Revenue Officer of Village Wadebolhai, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune by applicant No.1 by which he has taken objection to accept and sanction mutation entry by which name of Auction Purchaser was to be entered in Record of Rights of secured asset as it was sold in auction by defendant bank. The said Complaint/Objection letter was filed before Revenue Officer on 13^th December, 2024.

¶42

These facts glaringly shows that applicant No.1 was able to do routine work without being remained with his father Mr. Kashinath Gawade for taking care and attending him 24hrs. More so, applicant No.2 who is wife of applicant No.1 was also free to do the routine work. Therefore, in my opinion first ground for delay in filing Securitisation Application is not conceivable.

¶43

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 6 of 7

¶44

Second ground for causing delay in filing Securitisation Application by applicants is that on 27^th December, 2024 the applicant No.1 sustained fracture and injury on his hand and was hospitalized till 30^th December, 2024. It is not the case of the applicants that applicant No.1 was bedridden for long period but was only hospitalized for three days. Therefore, this ground is also not conceivable to consider.

¶45

In view of these observations, I hold that grounds for condonation of delay in filing Securitisation Application are not adequate and therefore, the applicants are not entitled for reliefs as claimed. Hence, application is liable for dismissal.

¶46

Therefore, by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Miscellaneous Application No.15/2025 is hereby

¶49

dismissed.

¶50

Pronounced in open Court

¶51

Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date 08.04.2025 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune

¶52

[Kaur] (MA No.15/2025) Page 7 of 7

Amol Kashinath Gawade v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Kashinath Gawade v. Union Bank of India

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

Mblem Digital versus Uco Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Krishnabai Karchre

Federal Bank versus Sunita Jagtap

Federal Bank versus Aba

Bank of Maharashtra versus Snheal Enterprises Prop Mr. Nilesh Madan Angolkar

Federal Bank versus Mustafa Jamadar