Allowed

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. State Bank of India

DRT20 Jun 2025MA/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of an 8-day delay in filing a securitisation application. The court found no evidence of the applicant's knowledge of prior auctions and dismissed the respondent's contention that the limitation period started much earlier.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Application allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- cost to DRT Bar Association.

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited versus State… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

Order

¶3

In Miscellaneous Application No.05 of 2025 In Securitisation Application (D) No.1559 of 2023

¶4

Presented on : 13.09.2023 Decided on : 20.06.2025

¶5

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited ...APPLICANT/s V/s.

¶6

State Bank of India & Ors.

¶7

...RESPONDENT/s

¶8

Argued By –

¶9

Mr Rajesh Nagory and Mr Aniket Dighe i/b M/s. Bhal & Co., Advocate for the Applicant.

¶10

Ms Fatima Lakdawala, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr G.R. Kinkhabwala, Ms Sugyata Choudhary and Ms Maithili Prabhu i/b M/s. Dhaval Vussonji & Asso., Advocates for Respondent No.4.

¶12

Ms Viloma Shah & Pawan Kulkarni, Advocates for proposed Respondent No.6.

¶13

None for other Respondents.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The Applicants has preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 8 days in filing Securitisation Application (D) No.1559 of 2023 to challenge the validity of the auction conducted on 12^th June 2023 by Respondent No.1

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

pursuant to its sale notice dated 19^th May 2023 under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶18

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant sanctioned loan facilities to Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and when they committed default, the Applicant declared their respective accounts as NPA and sent notices under the SARFAESI Act. Thereafter, on 08.06.2019, Respondent No.1 issued Sale Notice dated 19.05.2023 behind the back of the Applicant purportedly under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act in respect of the secured asset where Respondent No.5 was defined as borrower/title deed holder.

¶19

The Applicant came to know about the proposed Auction to be conducted on 12.06.2023 and then issued an objection letter on 09.06.2023 to the authorized officer of Respondent No.1 Bank and objected to the sale and also sent reminder dated 27.06.2023 and sent emails on 17.06.2023 & 25.07.2023 asking about the status of the Auction conducted. Despite sending letters and emails, no reply was sent by Respondent No.1 Bank to the Applicant. Thereafter, the Advocate for the Applicant filed the S.A. (D) No.1559 of 2023 on 04.08.2023

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

after a delay of 8 days since the period to file S.A. u/s. 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act expired on 27.07.2023.

¶22

Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.1 objects to the M.A. filed saying that the M.A. filed for condonation of delay is void and misconstrued stating the Respondent No.1 Bank put up the property for e-auction on 08.09.2022 for the first time and subsequently on 26.09.2022, 30.01.2023, 22.02.2023 and on 18.03.2023 and that on all dates e-auction sale notice was duly published in the newspaper and that the period for filing the present S.A. ought to have commenced from 08.09.2022 and not as wrongly stated by the Applicant i.e., from 12.06.2023 of the auction date. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent further states that the present S.A. is filed after the delay 347 days if counted from the first e-auction notice date i.e., 21.08.2022 till filing of the S.A. i.e., 04.08.2023 and further states that the Applicant has always been aware that Respondent No.1 Bank has the charge on the subject flat. Hence, the M.A. deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.1 further states that the e- auction dated 12.06.2023 was successful and the sale is

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

confirmed and the sale certificate dated 31.07.2023 has been already issued.

¶26

Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.6 filed reply affidavit (exhibit-17) supporting Respondent No.1 that the M.A. is misconceived and that the Applicant has filed the S.A. after the delay of 347 days and not 8 days.

¶27

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant filed rejoinder affidavit (exhibt-20) stating that the Applicant has filed S.A. (D) No.1559 of 2023 challenging the e-auction dated 12.06.2023 and therefore, there is delay of only 8 days.

¶28

Heard Ld. Advocate for the parties and Perused the Record.

¶29

In this matter, there is no evidence that the Applicant was having knowledge of the previous e-auctions, so, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, Misc. Application is allowed subject to cost quantified in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable to DRT Bar Association for purchase of books and periodicals.

¶30

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

¶31

Nidhi – 14

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

20.06.2025	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.05 of 2025*	Next date
	Mr Rajesh Nagory and Mr Aniket Dighe i/b M/s. Bhal & Co., Advocate for the Applicant. Ms Fatima Lakdawala, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr G.R. Kinkhabwala, Ms Sugyata Choudhary and Ms Maithili Prabhu i/b M/s. Dhaval Vussonji & Asso., Advocates for Respondent No.4. Ms Viloma Shah & Pawan Kulkarni, Advocates for proposed Respondent No.6. None for other Respondents.
	Order in M.A. No.05 of 2025 passed separately. S.A. (D) No.1559 of 2023 be registered after due compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
nrb - 14	Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶34

Page 5 of 5

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. State 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

Bank of India versus Saroj Ajay Tripathi

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Kirit Ambalal Prajapati

Hdfc Bank versus Pooja Mahesh Panchal

Ms Pawz Up versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Shrikant Chintaman Patil versus Profectus Capital Private Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/s Sri Jagannath Steel Company