Dismissed

Aakash Bhalchandra Thokal v. Central Bank of India

DRT17 Feb 2026MA/17/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application seeking condonation of delay in filing an Application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was dismissed by the Court. The Court found that the actual delay was 56 days and the cited reasons, including medical emergency and other proceedings, were not supported by sufficient cause. An explanation contradiction in the record further weighed against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. The Application for condonation of delay is dismissed.

Aakash Bhalchandra Thokal versus Central Bank of India — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2026)

¶1

17.02.2026	Exh.	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.17of 2026*	Next date
		Ms Hinal Sanghavi, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr Ojas Gole, Advocate for Respondent No.1, Bank. Mr Nitish Kumar, Bank officer. None for other Respondents.
		The Applicant has preferred this M.A. for condonation of delay of 30 days in filing of S.A. (D) No.2062 of 2025.
		Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that in the month end of November 2025, he came to know about the pasting of 13(4) notice on the back side of the shop and immediately, he lodged a police complaint on 08.12.2025 regarding fraud and cheating of Respondent Nos.2 and 3. The Applicant also filed a suit for cancellation of agreement for sale before Civil Court and due to all these proceedings, he could not file the S.A. (D) No.2062 of 2025 within time and seeks the delay of condonation of 30 days.
		Ld. Advocate for Respondent Bank opposed and submitted that the as per own pleadings of the Applicant in this M.A., he saw notice pasted on his wall on

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

09.09.2025 and he ought to have file the S.A. within 45 days i.e., till 24.10.2025. However, the Applicant filed S.A. on 19.12.2025, so, there is actually delay of 56 days rather than 30 days. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the no sufficient cause is shown by the Applicant for condonation of delay. So, M.A. should be dismissed.

¶4

Heard both Ld. Advocates. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by Ld. Advocate for the parties.

¶5

It is evident from the record that the Applicant has pleaded in Para xiii of the present M.A. that he saw a notice pasted on his wall under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act from Respondent No.1 on 09.09.2025. The Applicant ought to have file the S.A. till 24.10.2025. However, the Applicant filed the S.A. on 19.12.2025, so, there is delay of 56 days. The Applicant himself has prayed in relief clause Paragraph 6 clause A that condonation of the 56 days delay. So, there is contradiction in the M.A. itself. The Applicant has simply narrated that he was detected with cancer but has not

¶6

Page 2 of 3

¶7

rst -17	filed any supporting treatment documents. It is well established principle of law that the for condonation of delay, the words “sufficient cause” should be construed very liberally but, in the present case, the Applicant has not shown any sufficient cause as he remained engage in lodging police complaint and filing Civil Suit. Hence, the explanations given for condonation of delay is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the present M.A. No.17 of 2026 stands dismissed with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶8

Page 3 of 3

Aakash Bhalchandra Thokal v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakash Bhalchandra Thokal v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Debasish Bhattacharjee versus Anand Rathi Global Finance Limited

Bhavin Nalin Rachh versus Khush Housing Finance Private Limited

Ravindra Vishwanath Phatangare versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

Idbi Bank versus Omark International

Bank of India versus Hammad Travels

Federal Bank versus Sunil Narayan Kamble