Allowed

Jignesh Kantilal Jain v. Icici Bank Limited

DRT10 Oct 2025MA/98/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a specific application seeking condonation of a 16-day delay in filing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the application, holding that while power exists, it depends on sufficient reasons. The applicant cited lack of knowledge due to being a layman and improper advice as grounds, which the court found satisfactory.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Application No.98 of 2025 allowed; Kondonation of 16-day delay in filing Section 17 application granted.

Jignesh Kantilal Jain versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A. No.98 of 2025

¶3

In Securitisation Application (D) No.1469 of 2025

¶4

Sr. No.14 Decided on : 10.10.2025

¶5

Mr Jignesh Kantilal Jain

¶6

... APPLICANT/s

¶7

V/s.

¶8

ICICI Bank Limited & Ors. ...RESPONDENT/s

¶9

Argued By –

¶10

Mr Rajesh Nagori and Ms Namrata Manu, Advocates for the Applicant.

¶11

Ms Apurva Sanglikar i/b M/s. Vidhii Partners, Advocates for Respondent No.1.

¶12

None for Respondent No.2.

¶13

Ms Nupur Desai i/b M/s. IC Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This order of mine shall dispose of M.A. No.98 of 2025.

¶16

The Applicant has preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 16 days in filing Application under Section 17 being S.A. (D) No.1469 of 2025.

¶17

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is the co-owner of the secured asset which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. On 23.04.2024, without the Applicant’s Page 1 of 7

¶18

knowledge or consent, the Respondent No.1 Bank altered the Applicant’s registered contact details to those of Respondent No.2, and issued the demand notice u/s. 13(2) only to Respondent No.2, hence, depriving the Applicant of the notice. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 Bank published sale notice dated 28.05.2025 fixing the auction of the secured asset on 03.07.2025 without the Applicant having being served with the sale notice nor any valuation report or other mandatory disclosures. Only after conducting the auction on 03.07.2025, the Respondent No.1 Bank obtained order u/s. 14 dated 05.07.2025 appointing the Court Commissioner to take possession of the secured asset.

¶19

The Applicant came to know about the auction and the order u/s. 14 only on 31.07.2025 when he participated in proceedings before the MahaRERA. Upon knowledge, the Applicant applied for the certified copy of the order u/s. 14 dated 05.07.2025 on 21.08.2025 and received the certified copy on 28.08.2025. Thereafter, the Applicant could not file the S.A. on time due to him being a layman and unaware of the limitation period and also his then Advocate not advising him properly about the statutory limitation u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Upon engaging new Advocates only, the Applicant was able to file S.A. (D) No.1469 of 2025 on 04.09.2025 causing the delay of 16

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

days from the date of knowledge of Section 14 order i.e., 31.07.2025, which according to the DRT Registry is 61 days from passing of Section 14 order dated 05.07.2025.

¶22

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.1 Bank 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 that the present M.A. is untenable in law and ought to be rejected.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

This Tribunal gets guidance from 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

¶26

Page 3 of 7

¶27

Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in Appeal No.65 of 2023 after considering the following judgments of the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶28

1. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Gauhati in the matter of Baruah C.C. & Anr. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. dated 20.11.2024.

¶29

2. Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India & Ors. bearing citation No. MANU/SC/0566/2018 dated 05.08.2015.

¶30

3. Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.J. George & Anr. Vs. the Authorized Officer, Indian Bank of Ors. dated 26.03.2021.

¶31

4. Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.J. George & Anr. Vs. the Authorized Officer, Indian Bank & Ors. dated 06.10.2023.

¶32

5. Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Neel Enterprises & Ors. Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. bearing citation No. MANU/SC/0566/2018.

¶33

6. Order passed by the Ld. DRAT, Mumbai in the matter of Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah Vs The Authorized Officer, Bhagyodaya Cooperative Bank. Ltd. dated 18.07.2024.

¶34

7. Judgement passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay in the matter of UCO Bank Ltd. Vs. M/s. Kanji Manji Kothari & Co. & Ors. dated 19.12.2007.

¶35

Page 4 of 7

¶36

8. Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Raheem Shah and Ors. Vs. Govind Singh and Ors. bearing Manupatra No. MANU/SC/0829/2023.

¶37

9. Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Hemlata Verma Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors, bearing Manupatra No. MANU/SC/1584/201.

¶38

10. Judgement passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rafiq and Ors. Vs. Munshilal and Ors, bearing Manupatra No. MANU/SC/0076/1981.

¶39

That no doubt it is seemed from mentioned these decisions that the Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the Application u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act 2002. However, the condonation of the delay can be ordered only on giving sufficient and satisfactory reasons. If sufficient and satisfactory reasons are not given, there is no way the delay can be condoned, especially when the delay is huge.

¶40

From the perusal of the record of the matter in hands, it is clear that the auction was conducted on 03.07.2025 and as per the Applicant, he came to know of the auction only on 31.07.2025 and applied for certified copies on 21.08.2025 and received on 28.08.2025 and the S.A. was filed on 23.09.2025. It is clear that the total days of delay become 82 if reckoned from 04.07.2025 and 8 days are reduced in the process of getting certified copies and

¶41

Page 5 of 7

¶42

the Applicant ought to have filed the S.A. within 45 days as per provision u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. So, there is delay of 29 days and if period is reckoned from the date of knowledge i.e., 31.07.2025, then delay will be only one day.

¶43

In the present matter, the Applicant is seeking relief on the ground of co-owner and co-borrower in respect of the subject matter and delay is not of huge nature.

¶44

11.Resultantly, 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.

¶45

Accordingly, M.A. No.98 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶46

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

¶47

Nidhi

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

10.10.2025	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.98 of 2025*	Next date
	Mr Rajesh Nagori and Ms Namrata Manu, Advocates for the Applicant. Ms Apurva Sanglikar i/b M/s. Vidhii Partners, Advocates for Respondent No.1. None for Respondent No.2. Ms Nupur Desai i/b M/s. IC Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
	Order in M.A. No.98 of 2025 passed separately.
	S.A. (D) No.1469 of 2025 be registered after due compliance.
	File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
nrb - 14	Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶50

Page 7 of 7

Jignesh Kantilal Jain v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jignesh Kantilal Jain v. Icici Bank Limited

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

State Bank of India versus M/s Kalpvin International

State Bank of India versus Madhuri Vishwanath Desai

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus Kailash Khandelwal

Mr Nitin Chandulal Shah versus Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited

Kavyanjali Industries Private Limited versus Orix Leasing and Financial Services India Limited

Mr Kirit B Gadhiya versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited