Dismissed

Pradeep Gordhandas Vora v. Hdfc Bank

DRT15 Sept 2025MA/81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge tribunal of DRT-II, Mumbai rejected a miscellaneous application filed by an applicant seeking condonation of delay. The court held that Section 17 applications under the SARFAESI Act are original and the 45-day period is mandatory, making Section 5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Application No.81 of 2025 is rejected and disposed of.

Pradeep Gordhandas Vora versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A. No.81 of 2025

¶3

In Securitisation Application (D) No.1068 of 2025

¶4

Sr. No.10 Decided on : 15.09.2025

¶5

Pradeep Gordhandas Vora

... APPLICANT/s

V/s.

HDFC Bank Ltd.

...RESPONDENT/s

Argued By –

Mr Rajesh Nagori and Ms Farzeen Pardiwalla i/b M/s. FZB & Asso., Advocate for the Applicant.

¶12

Mr Charles De Souza (through VC) and Mr Shantanu Ray i/b M/s. Meraki Chambers, Advocate for Respondent.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This order of mine shall dispose of M.A. No.81 of 2025.

¶15

The Applicant has preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 03 days in filing Application under Section 17 being S.A. (D) No.1068 of 2025.

¶16

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant filed the present M.A. pursuant to receiving an objection from the Registry, DRT-2, Mumbai on 01.07.2025 pertaining to the limitation period of 45 days u/s 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act,

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

Ld. Advocate further submits that the E-auction notice is dated 09.05.2025, however, the same was published on 10.05.2025 in two newspapers and the Applicant became aware of the said notice only on 12.05.2025 and considering the period of limitation of 45 days would commence from 09.05.2025 to an end on 23.06.2025.

¶19

Ld. Advocate further states that S.A. (D) No.1068 of 2025 was signed and notarized on 23.06.2025, the same could not be filed due to technical glitches faced during the time of e-filing and the Applicant was only able to file S.A. (D) No.1068 of 2025 before DRT-1, Mumbai on 25.06.205 making the delay for 2 days. The Registry DRT-1, Mumbai raised objection and the S.A. (D) No.1068 of 2025 came to be refiled on 26.06.2025 making further delay of 1 day i.e. on the 48^th day from the notice dated 09.05.2025, and hence, prays that the delay of 3 days may be condoned.

¶20

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent opposed and submitted that present M.A. is silent on the provisions of law under which the Applicant seeks condonation of delay in filing the S.A. and the present M.A. ought to be reject on this ground alone. Ld. Advocate further states that there is no power with this Tribunal to condone the delay in filing the S.A. and has relied upon compilation of the judgments produced before this Tribunal and

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

that the present M.A. is untenable in law and ought to be rejected.

¶23

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent further submits that the M.A. made an incorrect statement about the Applicant’s knowledge of e-auction notice dated 09.05.2025 on 12.05.2025. Ld. Advocate submits that the statement is contrary and no evidence or documents are produced with the M.A. backing the statement and has not pleaded or explained the reasons for such delay. The Applicant became aware of the fact of the notice dated 09.05.2025 on 10.05.2025 as the notice was published in the newspapers on 10.05.2025 and the notice was also issued by the Respondent Bank to the Applicant’s address and the same was delivered on 10.05.2025. Ld. Advocate further submits that there is no correspondence made by the Applicant to the Respondent regarding the attempts to file the S.A. and the technical glitches faced while filing the S.A. and the filing of the S.A. before DRT1, Mumbai on 25.06.2025 as stated by the Applicant is not a Bonafide mistake as the DRT-1, Mumbai did not have any jurisdiction to hear the S.A.

¶24

Ld. Advocate further argues that the S.A. filed beyond the period of limitation and any challenge to the e-auction notice is also barred by limitation, therefore, any challenge to the SARFAESI measures taken prior to the e-auction notice are also

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore, prays the M.A. be rejected.

¶27

Heard Ld. Advocates for the Parties. Perused the Record.

¶28

Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank drew the attention of this Tribunal towards the order passed in Anthony Samy Versus Authorized Officer, State Bank of India and Anr (2023) SCC OnLine DRAT 650 in which Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai Bench after perusal of the judgments of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Velar Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Authorised Officer, Indian Bank, Kanchipuram and Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. Parasaadilal Tulsiram Sheet Grah Pvt. Ltd. observed that a combined reading of above two decisions makes it very clear that, 45 days fixed in Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandatory and Section 17 Application being original in nature, after amendment, question of applying Section 5 of Limitation Act, does not arise.

¶29

This Tribunal also gets guidance from the recent order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai, in the case of Smt. M. Subathra Versus State Bank of India in M.A. (S.A.) No.31/2022 in which after considering various judgment of Hon’ble High Courts on this point the principal laid down is that if an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, is in

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

entertain in an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, it would derail the vary purpose of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶32

It is clear that the Applicant by way of present M.A. No.81 of 2025 is trying to seeking relief which is barred by limitation and not permissible in the Law.

¶33

In the above facts and circumstance of the case, this Tribunal does not find any essence in the M.A. No.81 of 2025. So, the M.A. No.81 of 2025 is devoid of merit. Hence, rejected.

¶34

Accordingly, M.A. No.81 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶35

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

¶36

Nidhi

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

15.09.2025	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.81 of 2025*	Next date
	Mr Rajesh Nagori and Ms Farzeen
	Pardiwalla i/b M/s. FZB & Asso., Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Charles De Souza (through VC) and Mr Shantanu Ray i/b M/s. Meraki Chambers, Advocate for Respondent.
	Order in M.A. No.81 of 2025 passed separately.
	File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O.	Closed
nrb - 10	DRT-II

¶39

Page 6 of 6

Pradeep Gordhandas Vora v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Gordhandas Vora v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus M/S Rajasthan Aluminium

Hdfc Bank versus Shivshankar S. Yadav

Bank of Maharashtra versus Naresh Badha Katpara

Chanderlata Gosai versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Kalulal Dhanraj Kothari versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Yes Bank versus Mohammad