The court dismissed a sanction application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone an 588-day delay in filing the application seeking condonation of limitation for a service application related to banking recovery.
Condonation of delay application rejected; Service Application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH
SA/278/2024 SURINDER PAUL KHATTAR Vs PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
06.11.2025
Item No.30
Present: Mr. Manpreet Singh Dua, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr.Nitin Grover, Counsel for respondent FI.
File taken up today as 05.11.2025 has been declared as holiday. Heard on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is stated that there is a delay of 588 days in filing the present SA. The symbolic possession was taken on 14.11.2022 and the SA was filed in June, 2024. It is stated that there were health issue of the Applicant.
The SARFAESI Act has been enacted with the object to expedite the recovery. I am of the considered view that no ground for condoning the delay is made out. The application is hereby dismissed . Consequently, SA is also rejected.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh
MANOJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 588 days in filing the sanction application warrants condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SURINDER PAUL KHATTAR
PIRAMAL CAPITAL AND HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED
(A S Narang)
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
