Dismissed

Tarsem Lal v. State Bank of India

DRT21 Nov 2025SA/138/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh dismissed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The applicant sought to exclude 168 days of delay claiming bona fide pursuit of remedies in the High Court over a prior auction notice. The Court held the High Court proceedings were unrelated to the current auction, intent was not bona fide, and the applicant was clearly informed of the sale

What did the court decide?

Application for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act dismissed; Special Application rejected.

Tarsem Lal versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

SA No.138/2025

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶3

SA/138/2025 TARSEM LAL AND ANOTHER Vs

¶4

AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

¶5

21.11.2025

¶6

Item No.25

¶7

Present: Mr. K.D. Ray, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Vivek Verma, Counsel for respondent No1 and 2/Bank.

¶8

This order will dispose of the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of 168 days in filing SA No.138 of 2025, before this Tribunal against the Authorized Officer, SBI and another.

¶9

Applicant had filed SA No.138 of 2025 on 13.05.2025. Along with the SA, he had filed the present application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

¶10

I will come to the impugned application a little later. Some background facts be noticed first.

¶11

In this case, the secured assed was sold by the Bank on 29.10.2024 in pursuance to the auction notice dated 04.10.2024. As per SBI, the auction purchaser has deposited the whole of the sale consideration and the Bank has also delivered the possession of the secured asset to him.

¶12

Applicant had earlier filed writ petition No.2814 of 2024 in the Hon’ble J&K High Court on 25.11.2024, wherein he had challenged the auction notice dated 30.09.2024. It is admitted on the record that though the property was sold by way of public auction on 29.10.2024 and though the Applicant had filed the writ petition on 25.11.2024 in the Hon’ble High Court, yet, he did not impugn the auction dated 29.10.2024. In fact, he had impugned the earlier auction notice dated 30.09.2024 in pursuance to which

¶13

¶14

SA No.138/2025

¶15

the property was not sold. Vide order dated 27.11.2024, Hon’ble the High Court allowed the Applicant to pay Rs.43,38,803.90p within six weeks. Thereafter, the matter remained pending in the Hon’ble High Court and on 02.05.2025, Applicant made a prayer to the Hon’ble High Court to allow him to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal–I, Chandigarh. Accordingly, on 02.05.2025 the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition with the liberty to avail the remedy as available to him under the law.

¶16

The question which arises for consideration is; whether the Applicant is entitled to the exclusion of time for the period the matter remained pending in the Hon’ble High Court and as such he is entitled to the exclusion of 168 days in filing the present SA?

¶17

Applicant in the impugned application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act has alleged that he had approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WP(C) No.2814 of 2024 wherein he had challenged the auction notice dated 30.09.2024. Later on he had withdrawn the writ petition on 02.05.2025. In the Hon’ble High Court, Bank had filed an application wherein it had mentioned that it had sold the property on 29.10.2024 on the basis of the auction notice dated 04.10.2024. By filing the present SA, Applicant has challenged the notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) as well as the auction dated 29.10.2024. Applicant has further alleged that he was never served with the auction notice dated 04.10.2024. Applicant states that there is a delay of 168 days in filing the SA which should be excluded. He has also alleged that in case the period of 45 days is calculated from 02.05.2025 i.e. the date of the order of Hon’ble High Court, the SA is within time. Applicant has also alleged that he had earlier bona fidely

¶18

¶19

SA No.138/2025

¶20

approached the Hon’ble High Court and he has good case on merit. The application is supported by an affidavit.

¶21

In reply to the application filed by the Bank, it is stated that the SA is time-barred. Applicant had filed the SA on 13.05.2025, wherein he had challenged the auction dated 29.10.2024. The sale notice dated 04.10.2024 was duly served upon him. Despite having knowledge, Applicant failed to approach this Tribunal. Applicant had filed the writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court after the expiry of 45 days from the auction notice dated 04.10.2024. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the application and the same be dismissed.

¶22

Mr. K.D. Ray, counsel for the Applicant argues that as per the orders of this Tribunal, the Bank had served the sale certificate to him on 16^th July, 2025. He has further argued that the Bank had filed an IA before the Hon’ble High Court wherein it had disclosed that the property has been sold on 29.10.2024. Applicant was never informed by the Bank that it had sold the property. In fact, in April, 2025 only, the Bank informed before this Tribunal that it has sold the property. Accordingly, the time during which the Applicant was pursuing his remedy before the Hon’ble High Court be excluded.

¶23

Per contra, Mr. Verma, argues that the Bank had written a letter to the Applicant on 12.12.2024 informing him that the property has been sold on 29.10.2024. Further, the Bank had filed an application before the Hon’ble High Court on 18.12.2024 and had served a copy of the same to his counsel on 18.12.2024 informing that the property has since been sold on 29.10.2024. Further, the Bank had written a letter to the Applicant on 05.02.2025 which was duly served upon him on 06.03.2025 by hand and another letter dated 07.04.2025 stating that the property has been sold.

¶24

¶25

SA No.138/2025

¶26

Accordingly, the SA filed on 13.05.2025 is misconceived and the same be dismissed.

¶27

Mr. Verma, has today shown to me a copy of the reply filed by the Bank in the Hon’ble High Court. In para No.9 of the reply, it has been categorically mentioned by the Bank that in pursuance to the auction notice dated 04.10.2024, the Bank has sold two shops at front and four rooms at back, area 4.19 Marlas owned by the Applicant to Neetan Gupta. The Bank also annexed the sale intimation letter 29.10.2024. Further, a perusal of the application filed by the Bank before the Hon’ble High Court would show that it bears an endorsement by one Palak, Advocate on behalf of the Aman Bhagotra that the reply has been received on 18.12.2024.

¶28

12. I have considered the rival contentions.

¶29

As per the Applicant, there is a delay of 168 days in filing the SA. Applicant has sought exclusion on the ground that earlier he had filed WP(C) No.2814 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High Court. In the WP(C) No.2814 of 2024, Applicant had neither challenged the auction notice dated 04.10.2024 nor the auction dated 29.10.2024. He had challenged an earlier auction notice dated 30.09.2024, in pursuance to which the auction did not materialize. During the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court, on 18.12.2024, the counsel for the Bank had filed an application. In para No.9 of the application, it has been categorically mentioned that Bank has sold the property on 29.10.2024 and has issued the sale intimation letter to Neetan Gupta. The Bank had also annexed a copy of sale intimation letter. Further, prior to that on 12.12.2024 Bank had written to the Applicant that the property has been sold. That apart, Bank had written a letter to the Applicant on 05.02.2025 which was duly served upon him on 06.03.2025 by hand and another letter dated 07.04.2025 stating that the property has

¶30

¶31

SA No.138/2025

¶32

been sold. Despite all this information, the Applicant did not file the SA. That apart, the matter in issue before this Tribunal is entirely different from the one which was in issue before the Hon’ble High Court. Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, a litigant is entitled to the exclusion of time in case he has been bona fidely pursuing the remedy in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or cause of like nature is not competent to entertain it. In the present case, the Applicant had never challenged the auction notice dated 04.10.2024 or the auction dated 29.10.2024. The matter in issue before the Hon’ble High Court was entirely different. From the material on the record, it is apparent that the Applicant was duly intimated of the auction dated 29.10.2024 on 12.12.2024 and later on in the High Court on 18.12.2024 and further by the letter dated 05.02.2025 which was duly served upon him on 06.03.2025. However, the Applicant filed the present SA on 13.05.2025. I am of the considered view, that the Applicant is not entitled to the exclusion of time. The application is hereby dismissed . Consequently, the SA is rejected. All the pending IAs, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Registrar is directed to send a copy of this order to all the parties, as per rule. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶34

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

¶35

Pronounced in open court Dated: 21.11.2025 PANKAJ

¶36

Tarsem Lal v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem Lal 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

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited versus M/S M M Enterprises

State Bank of India versus M/S Era Enterprises

State Bank of India versus Lakhvir Singh

M/S Jaspal Singh and Sons versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Sri Sailesh Shrestha versus State Bank of India

Ms Khan Enterprise Proprietor MD Sabir Ahmed versus Icici Bank Limited