BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 448/2023 (CoD)

In Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 445/2023 Between Ramchandra Khandu Shinde … Appellant/s V/s.

GIC Housing Finance Ltd. …Respondent/s Ms. Sonali Jain, Advocate for Appellant.

Ms. Medha Rane, i/b M/s. M & S Legal Ventures, Advocate for Respondent.

-: Order dated: 23/01/2025:-

The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 29.08.2022 in the Interlocutory Application No. 1974/2022 (I.A.) in Securitisation Application No. 256/2022 (S.A.) on the files of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) wherein the injunction sought against the 1^st Respondent from taking physical possession of the secured assets was declined. The D.R.T. had disposed of the application stating that the appellant had come up with an OTS proposal which was accepted by the respondent financial institution and therefore, there is no prima facie case made out to grant the protection.

2. While considering I.A. No. 183/2023 for waiver of pre-deposit this Tribunal had taken account of the situation wherein the OTS proposal was accepted and then defaulted. It would therefore amount to a waiver of the challenges raised against the Sarfaesi measures.

However, the appellant was directed to pay the amount toward the pre-deposit which was complied with by the appellant and the appeal is therefore, taken up for consideration but there is a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal which is sought to be condoned.

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent financial institution submits that this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay since the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 ( “SARFAESI Act” for short) does not provide the condonation the delay. However, section 18 (2) indicates that the appeal has to be disposed of in accordance with the provision of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB Act” for short) and section 23 specifically provides that this Appellate Tribunal has power to condone the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has upheld this position in the decision of Baleshware Dayal Jaiswal V/s. Bank of India & Ors (2016) 1 SCC 444 and therefore, there is no doubt that this Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act importing the jurisdiction granted to this Tribunal to condone the delay u/s 20 (3) of the RDB Act.

4. The next question that arose for consideration was whether there were sufficient reasons given by the appellant for condoning the delay of 176 days. Going through the entire application and the affidavit accompanying, I find that the reasons given are not so satisfactory. Nevertheless, the appellant must be granted an opportunity to contest the appeal on its merits and therefore, the delay of 176 days is condoned subject to payment of cost. The appellant is directed to pay a sum of ₹25000/- as cost to the respondent financial institution which shall be accounted toward the debt due, within two weeks, i.e., on or before 06.02.2025.

List the matter on 07.02.2025 before the Ld. Registrar for reporting compliance regarding the payment.

Sd/-

Chairperson psa-30