Dismissed

Seema Rani v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited

DRT19 Feb 2026SA/273/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitization Application under Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held the application was time-barred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, rejecting condonation of delay as the applicants participated in prior proceedings without disclosing the mortgagor's death. A settlement approach was permitted.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed. Securitization Application also stands dismissed.

Seema Rani versus Mentor Home Loans India Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

SA no. 273/2023

¶2

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIMAL GUPTA

¶4

DATE OF RESERVED OF ORDER : 21.01.2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 19.02.2026

¶5

SA No.- 273/2023

¶6

Seema Rani W/o Late Jagdeep Kumar William, aged about 56 years, resident of Plot no. 388, Krichiyan Colony, Gram Panchayat Kachroda, Tehsil Phulera, Jaipur-303338, Rajasthan.

¶7

Hansie Jonathan William s/o Late Jagdeep Kumar William aged about 26 yars Resident of Plot no. 388, Krichiyan Colony, Gram Panchayat Kachroda, Tehsil Phulera, Jaipur-303338, Rajasthan.

¶8

………Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Mentor Home Loans India Limited having its registered office at Mentor House, Govind Margm Sethi Colony, Jaipur-302004 Rajasthan through its Authorized Officer.

¶11

..….. Respondent Bank/FI

¶12

Present:

¶13

Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Sharma & Sh. Sunil Kumar Jangir, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶14

Sh. Alok Mathur, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI

SA no. 273/2023

(Final Order) (19.02.2026)

¶19

This Securitization Application filed by the applicant no. 1 & 2 with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act the applicant states that the securitization application filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.08.2020 under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, however, due to the demise of her husband who is the mortgagor of the subject immovable property, the family became mentally and financially eroded coupled with the wrong legal advice, the present application could not be preferred within the prescribed period of limitation.

¶20

It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the M.A no. 21/2022 filed in the suo motu writ petition (C) No. 3/2020 passed the order dated 10.01.2022 whereby the period of limitation falling between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 is excluded with the direction that notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022 and by virtue of the said order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the applicants will have a limitation period till 29.05.2022.

¶21

It is further submitted that in the present case there is a gross violation of the mandatory provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the basic rights of the applicants and respondent company is not entitled to proceed further on the basis of the illegal classification of the loan account as NPA and alleged Demand Notice dated 29.08.2019 and the impugned order dated 18.08.2020 passed against a dead person which is null and void, hence, in the interest of justice the delay in filing of the present application may kindly be condone and application may kindly be decided on its merits and as such the present

SA no. 273/2023

application under the Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 as filed on 03.04.2023.

¶26

The respondent bank has filed reply of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 2002 and submitted that the account was highly irregular and become NPA on 20.06.2019. The notice under Section 13(2) dated 29.08.2019 was issued and duly served on the borrowers.

¶27

It is further submitting that Ld. DM Jaipur was obtained on facts and merits of the case as on 18.08.2020 and the order mentions that the SA applicant participated in the DM proceedings and also filed reply, but never disclosed about the death.

¶28

It is further submitted that the borrower had taken limitation from case of Hon’ble Supreme Court on limitation extended due to CORONA. Whereas the borrowers account became NPA on 20.06.2019 much long before COVID and Demand Notice was served on 29.08.2019. Therefore, it is crystal clear that this loan account of borrowers are in no way eligible of the quoted judgment as they have to file SA within 45 days of DM order dated 18.08.2020 in which they participated.

¶29

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶30

The SA applicant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and had made a false submission that they have informed the Respondent Company of death of Mr. Jagdeep Kumar William, but not disclosed to DM.

¶31

This Securitization application filed challenging the Ld.DM order dated 18.08.2020 in the year 2023, though the matter has been heard on the merit also, but the application which is presented in April, 2023 is highly time barred and the reasons stated for condonation of delay are not sufficient to condone the delay.

SA no. 273/2023

In these circumstances, it is ordered that this Securitization Application is not within the limitation nor there is any ground for condoning the delay and taking this securitization application on record.

¶36

The case would have been different if the applicant had no knowledge of the securitization proceedings and have been sudden thrust upon of these proceedings to determine the case for condonation of delay in filing the securitization application. They participated before DM.

¶37

Accordingly, there is no ground to condonation the delay, therefore, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands dismissed and this Securitization Application also stands dismissed.

¶38

However, the applicant is at liberty to approach the respondent bank for settlement and in case the applicant approach, the respondent to look into such OTS with liberal approach and give concession in the penalties being imposed.

¶39

File be consigned to record, as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.

¶40

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur

¶41

Seema Rani v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Rani v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh versus Hdb Financial Services Limited

State Bank of India versus Ms Dharohar Faishon Studio

Hdfc Bank versus Badal Vishnoi

Chhagan Lal Jangid versus Bank of Baroda

Ms Jairaj Hostel versus Hdb Financial Services Limited

Axis Bank versus Riya Minerals Private Limited