The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, rejected an application for condonation of delay under the Securitization Act. Despite not condoning the delay, the Tribunal heard the appeal on merits and dismissed it as not maintainable due to lack of merit.
Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
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.
Court of the Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
Item No. 4
Case No. APPEAL/2/2026 IN SA/713/2024
MS SHREE LAXMI SILVER WORKS Vs AXIS BANK
Date: 28.01.2026.
Proceedings through hybrid mode Present:
Shri Rachit Sharma, Counsel for the Applicant
In this matter, counsel for the appellant under Section 5 for condonation of delay. This Tribunal is not incline to allow that application, still the matter was heard on merit. He relied upon Section 17(7) of the Securitization Act, to show that what is not specifically provide under the Securitization Act those rules of RDB Act shall apply. He relied upon Section 4 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Refund of Court Fee Rules 2013. The said section deals with matters which are settled between the parties not those become infructuous.
There is no merit in this matter, therefore, this Appeal is not maintainable and the same stands dismissed.
File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for condonation of delay is maintainable under Section 17(7) of the Securitization Act read with Section 4 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal Refund of Court Fee Rules 2013.
Whether the appeal in this matter was maintainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MS SHREE LAXMI SILVER WORKS
AXIS BANK
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
