Sushama Vijaykumar Patil versus Union Bank of India

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

	14.07. Sr. No	2025 .10 SA Diary No.685/2025
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		ORDER BELOW IA DIARY NO.1117/2025 IN SECURITIZATION APPLICATION DIARY NO. 685/2025.
		Mrs. Sushama Vijaykumar Patil ..Applicant V/s Union Bank of India and Others. ..Respondents
		Mr. Anil P. Kale - Advocate for the applicant Mr. Atul A. Mishra- Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. M.M. Avhad - Advocate for the respondent No. 3 None for respondent No.4. Mr. P.S. Gaikwad - Advocate for the respondent No. 5 .
		1. The applicant has filed SA No. 1117/2025 for condonation of delay in filing the Securitization Application Diary No. 685/2025 on the grounds that respondent No.3 is original borrower who is serving as Teacher and applicant is wife of respondent No. 3 and
		co-borrower in loan transactions. The applicant and respondent No. 3 deposited regular instalments up to the end of August
		2017, but due to family disputes, the applicant and respondent No.3 were separated from each other and applicant alongwith her
		two children was residing in the disputed residential house and
		only to harass the applicant, respondent No. 3 has not deposited

¶3

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 1 of 10

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶5

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶6

ORDER SHEET

¶7

the EMI regularly, and the bank has also not taken any action
against respondent No. 3 for recovery of the same by attaching
his salary. The applicant bank has also made fraud with the applicant and applicant has filed criminal complaint against bank
officer and respondent No. 3. Applicant has no knowledge about
the recovery proceedings as well as e-auction sale dated
19/03/2024 as the applicant alongwith her children are now
residing in their relatives’ house. The applicant has filed SA
bearing No. 485/2024 challenging the impugned order of
District Magistrate but thereafter subsequent actions taken by the
bank and that SA was withdrawn and the Securitization
Application (Diary) No. 485/2024 filed. The subsequent events
took place that the applicant obtained information and documents
from the office of Sub-Registrar, Dhule on 22/4/2025 regarding
sale registered vide day book serial No.2230/2025 dated
17/4/2025 in favour of auction purchaser, respondent No.5. The
applicant has also visited the respondent bank and requested for
restoration of possession and shown her bonafide to deposit total
dues of respondent bank but to no effect. It is further alleged
that there is continuous cause of action and respondent bank has
registered sale on 17/4/2025 and as such there is no delay in
filing the present Securitization Application. If delay is counted

¶8

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 2 of 10

¶9

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶10

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶11

ORDER SHEET

¶12

from the order of District Magistrate which caused near-about 21
months and 113 days till filing of previous Securitization
Application. It is further alleged that there is no deliberate delay
and if delay in filing present Securitization Application is not
condoned, applicant could not contest the application on merits,
and the respondent bank would succeed in its illegal action.
Even there is no harm to the respondent bank, if delay is
condoned and prayed for condonation of the delay caused in
filing the Securitization Application.
2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 bank filed reply alleging therein that
the allegations made in the application are totally after thought
and contrary to the records maintained by the bank. The
applicant was given adequate time to pay the entire dues but the
applicant failed to do so. There is no day to day explanation
given by the applicants. The loan account of the applicant was
irregular and classified as NPA on 31/11/2017. The symbolic
possession was taken on 21/09/2018. The physical possession
was taken on 17/10/2023 in view of the possession notice dated
18/9/2023 issued by the Tahsildar on the basis of District
Magistrate order dated 6/7/2023. The sale notice was issued on
23/11/2023 which was published in two newspapers and sale was
held on 15/12/2023, and bank has received bid and the property

¶13

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 3 of 10

¶14

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶15

ORDER SHEET

¶16

was sold for Rs. 51,77,000/-, and sale certificate has been issued
in favour of the purchaser after receiving entire amount on
15/03/2024. The respondent bank has duly followed the
procedure laid –down under the Securitization Act. The
applicant has raised objection by filing the Securitization
Application just for prolonging the matter and the present
application filed by the applicant may be dismissed with costs.
3. The respondent No. 3 original borrower and husband of the
present applicant has also filed reply of aforesaid application and contested the application on almost similar grounds as contested
by the bank (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2), and prayed for dismissal
of the application of the applicant with heavy costs.
4. The Respondent No. 5 auction purchaser also filed separate reply
and contested application on the grounds that the delay in filing
the Securitization Application is intentional and deliberate. The
applicant has prayed for setting aside the demand notice U/s. 13
(2) of the Act. No measures taken under U/s.13 (2) of The
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For short : the
SARFAESI Act) can be challenged in the Hon’ble Tribunal and
only measures U/s.-17 (4) of the Act can be challenged. It is
alleged that present respondent is successful bidder and auction

¶17

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 4 of 10

¶18

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶19

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶20

ORDER SHEET

¶21

purchaser purchased the property after following prescribed
procedure and sale certificate has also been registered. The
applicant was well aware about these facts and applicant has also
lost the physical possession of immovable property. The ground
of condonation of delay taken by the applicant that she was busy
in family matters cannot be accepted. It is further alleged that as
lack of knowledge cannot be accepted because the applicant was
having knowledge of proceedings as action taken by the bank
which was in the knowledge of applicant. The respondent No. 5 prayed for dismissal of the condonation of delay application with heavy costs.
5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties on this
application at length and gone through the record available on the file.
6. The present Securitization Application has been filed on
04/05/2025, and District Magistrate has passed order on
06/07/2023. The applicant has challenged all the orders passed
on the basis of District Magistrate order dated 06/07/2023. If the
limitation is counted from the order of District Magistrate, then it
comes out 668 days. Now it has to be appreciated in the given
facts and circumstances of the case as to whether the applicant
has sufficient grounds for condonation of this delay or not?.

¶22

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 5 of 10

¶23

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶24

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶25

ORDER SHEET

¶26

7. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant
was well aware of the proceedings of the case and the applicant
has failed to explain the delay in filing the present Securitization
Application. It was also argued that in view of the order of the
District Magistrate, the respondent bank has taken physical
possession on 17/10/2023 and the secured asset was sold to
highest bidder respondent No. 5 on 15/12/2023, and even sell has
been confirmed and registered. It was also argued that earlier
Securitization Application (Diary) No.485/2024, has been
withdrawn by the applicant and now SARFAESI proceedings
have been concluded as per provisions of the Act and Rules
made thereunder and the application moved by the applicant for condonation of delay is not maintainable.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No.5 auction purchaser has
also submitted that the respondent No. 5 has purchased the
secured assets being highest bidder on 15/12/2023 in view of the
sale notice dated 23/11/2023 and he has deposited all sale
consideration amount Rs. 51,77,000/-, and sell certificate has
also been issued in his favour on 15/03/2024 which has been
registered on 17/04/2025. The applicant has filed Securitization
Application only to create obstruction in the recovery
proceedings, and prayed for dismissal of the application of the

¶27

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 6 of 10

¶28

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶29

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶30

applicant.
9. As per perusal of the reply filed by the respondent bank and
respondent No. 3 (Husband of the present applicant), they have
filed reply on similar lines and reference of the judgments is also
the same in both the replies. The Respondent No. 3 husband of
the applicant has also prayed for dismissal of the application of
the applicant. In application it is specifically pleaded by the applicant that there is collusion between the bank and respondent
No. 3 and she has also made complaint against them for
withdrawing the amount from her account by way of fraud.
Further there was a family dispute between applicant and the
respondent No. 3 and the applicant was residing separately since
2016 alongwith her two children, and she was having no
knowledge of SARFAESI proceedings. The ground of
condonation of delay taken by the applicant that she was busy in
family matter and having no knowledge regarding the
proceedings as well as action taken by the bank. The facts and
circumstances disclosed by the applicant in the application prime
facie reflects that her husband adopted the line of respondent
bank after disputes from his wife (applicant) which is also
established from the reply filed before this Tribunal on almost
similar lines and references of same judgments have been made

¶31

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 7 of 10

¶32

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶33

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶34

ORDER SHEET

¶35

by the bank as well as by respondent No. 3. Therefore, in case
the delay is condoned and case is decided on merits, it would not
cause any prejudice to any of the respondents when the
proceedings have been conducted as per provisions of
SARFAESI Act and Rules made thereunder. It may be noted
here that the respondents have opposed this condonation of delay
application of the applicant only on the grounds that they have
sold away the property to respondent No.5 (auction purchaser) as
per law. The allegations in replies made by the respondents are
pertaining to the merits of the case and same would be decided
on merits after appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the
parties and therefore, the application for condonation of delay
moved by the applicant is maintainable.
10. Further whether the applicant has made out sufficient cause or
not, in the application filed, the Tribunal is required to look at all
the facts pleaded in the application. No doubt, the consideration
of existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with
the Tribunal, but such discretion has to be exercised on sound
principles and not on mere technicalities. The approach of the
Court in such matters should be to advance the cause of justice
and not the cause of technicalities. A case, as far as possible,
should be decided on merits and the party should not be deprived

¶36

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 8 of 10

¶37

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶38

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶39

ORDER SHEET

¶40

to get the case examined on the merits. In support of these
findings, reliance can be placed on judgment titled*Raj Kishore*
*Pandey V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 2009 (2) S.C.C.*
*692.*Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay at Goa in judgment;*Vasanati Narayan Naik V/s.Guru*
*Shirodkar 2013 (5) Bom CR 343.*
11. In view of the above judgments and facts and circumstances of
the case, the judgments referred in replies by the respondent bank
and respondent No. 3 titled Lingeswaran Etc. Vs
Thirunagalinngm reported in 2022 SCC online SC 2233,
Chennai Metropolitan Water supply and Sewerage Board
and Others V/s T.T. Murli Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108 and
Pathapti Subba Reddy V/s Special Deputy Collector reported
in 2024 SCC online SC 513are not applicable and even these
judgments are distinguishable on facts.
12. In view of the above observations, I pass the following order.
ORDER
A. The Interlocutory Application No.1117/2025 filed for
condonation of delay by the applicant is hereby allowed, and
delay in filing Securitization Application Diary No. 685/2025
is hereby condoned.
B. The Registry is directed to register the Securitization

¶41

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 9 of 10

¶42

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶43

Application.

¶44

C. Issue notice to respondent No. 4 returnable on 29/08/2025. D. The respondents are hereby directed to file reply to main Securitization Application. List this matter for appearance of respondent No.4 and filing reply by other respondents to main Securitization Application on 29/08/2025.

¶45

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶46

[Ambadas] (SA Diary No.685/2025) Page 10 of 10

Sushama Vijaykumar Patil v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushama Vijaykumar Patil v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Balasaheb Ralebhat versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus Vikas Ratan Valvi

Union Bank of India versus Shaikh Akeel Shaikh Nadar Pinjari

Ms Shri Sadguru Stones versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus Ms N G Enterprises

Junaid Abdul Razzaque Hamdulay versus Icici Home Finance Company Ltd.