Dismissed

Jaswant Motors v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

DRT3 Jun 2026SA/113/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a 14-day delay in filing a secritization application under the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal held the applicant failed to state when they knew of the order or demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed for condonation of a 14-day delay in filing SA No. 113 of 2024 was dismissed. Consequently, the SA was rejected.

Jaswant Motors versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA No. 1 13 of 2024

¶2

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

SA No. 113 of 2024

Jaswant Motors

Versus

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and others

¶7

Dated: 03.06.2026

¶8

Item No. 15

¶9

Argued by: Mr.Sardavinder Goyal, Counsel for Applicant (on VC).

¶10

Mr.Nitin Grover and Mr.SC Prajapati, Counsel for Respondents.

¶11

This order will dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 14 days in filing SA No. 113 of 2024 filed by Jaswant Motors (Applicant) under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), against Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and others (Respondents).

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

Applicant has filed the present SA with the averments that on 31.03.2018. DHFL had sanctioned it a loan of Rs. 2.81.26,022/- on the A.qU% seauMg of h-ouse No. 442-R, Model Town, Jalandhar. Since, it failed to make the payment, DHFL initiated the SARFAESI action. On 29.04.2021, DHFL issued the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The loan was taken over by Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited. On 06.07.2022, Piramal Capital issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Later, Piramal Capital filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before C JM. Jalandhar, who vide order dated 05.01.2024 allowed the application. Applicant Bled the present SA on 1 1.03.2024.

¶15

4 With this background, I come to the impugned application.

¶16

¶17

SA No. 1 13 of 2024

¶18

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶19

Applicant in para No. 5 and 6 of the impugned application has alleged

¶20

as under:-

¶21

5, That the order dated 05.01.2024 came into knob'ledge of the applicants much late, thereqfter sometime was spent in the Hon’ble High Court, thereafter, sometime was also taken in collecting the documents and also for arranging the money to fIle the case before this Hon’ble Tribunal. In such circumstances, the delay of 14 days has occurred which is neither intentional nor willful.

¶22

1. That it is also a matter of concern that the applicant will not get anything by delaying its own case. In such circumstances the present application has been .med .for condonation of delay 14 days.

¶23

¶24

Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon ’ble Punjab and Har)'ana High Court in CWP No. 20243 and 16232 of 2025, titled M/s Fair Style Embroidery Works and another versus DRT-II and others, decide don 12. 09.2025. 2025(4) RC R (Civil) 666, Mr. Sardavinder Goyal. counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the applications filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Mr.Goyal further submitted that the Applicant has got a very good case on merits. Mr.Goyal submitted that there was no CERS Al registration in the case in hand. Accordingly. the Respondent could not initiate the SARFAESI action. Mr.Goyal further submitted that the Respondent had not responded to the objections filed by the Applicant under Section 13(3 A) and on this very ground the SARFAESI action is liable to be set aside. Mr.Goyal has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in W,it P,titi,„ No. 2935 ,f 2018, titl,d J„lg,,„, J„,t, S„h,k„i B,„k Limit,d „,d ,„„th,r ~,r,us Joint' C„„„„i„i,„,„ ,f S,I„ T,, N,d,1 9, M„,„b,i ,„d ,„,th,r, d„ide(i on',

SA No. 1 13 of 2024

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-1, CHANDIGARH

¶29

30.08.2022; judgment passed bY the Hon’bte Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 182 of 2019, decided on 02.06.2020; judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2928-2930 of 2018. titled ITC Limited versus Blue Coast Hotels and others, decided on 19.03.2018; judgment passed by DRT-II, Chandigarh in SA No. 231 of 2022, titled Vishal Yadav and atrothel' versus A.O. Punjab National Bank, decided on 26.12.202 and judgment passed by DRT-II, Mumbai in SA No. 473 of 2018, titled M/s Goenka Jen?ellers and others versus UCO Bank.

¶30

Per contra. Mr. Grover, counsel for the Respondent Fl. has made a statement at the Bar that he is not to nIe the reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and would submit arguments on merits. Relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil e Appeal No. 92 of 2026, titled PropertY Company Private Limited versus Rohinten Daddy Mazda, (2026) 4 Supreme Court Cases I decided on 07.0 1.2026. Mr.Grover submitted that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable in proceedings before Special Tribunals. Accordingly, the delay in tiling the Securitization Application cannot be condonded. The application be dismissed.

¶31

1 have considered the rival contentions.

¶32

¶33

Assuming that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. still the Applicant has to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Applicant should state specifically as to when he had come to know of the proceedings; he has to show specifically the ' terminus a quo ’ from which date he has computed the limitation. In the case in hand, Applicant states that he had come to know o- the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by C JM, Jala„dhar much later. He has not given the specific date as to when he had come to know of the order dated 3

SA No. 1 13 of 2024

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶38

05.01.2024 passed by CJM. Jalandhar. Applicant has vaguely mentioned that he had come to know of the order dated 05.01.2024 much later etc. 10. 1 am of the considered view that the Applicant has not pleaded the facts on the basis of which he can show that he had sufficient cause for not filing the present SA within time. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the SA is also rejected. All the pending IAs. if any. are disposed of, accordingly.

¶39

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

¶40

Pronounced in open court Dated: 03.06.2026 Vlanoj

¶41

Jaswant Motors v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Motors v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs Krishna Disit

State Bank of India versus Sri Arun Dey And Anr.

State Bank of India versus Sri khalil Mia And Anr.

Sh. Sawinder Singh versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

Axis Bank versus Bandappa Gouda

Geeta Gupta Wo Lt Rakesh Kumar versus Punjab and Sind Bank