AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellant filed S.A. bearing No. 113/2024 titled as Jaswant Motors v. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and others which was stated to be pending before DRT-I, Chandigarh.
The DRT-I, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 03.06.2026 has rejected the S.A. bearing No. 113/2024 while dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 03.06.2026 is reproduced as under:
9.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 of the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by CJM, Jalandhar much later. He has not given the specific date as to when he had come to know of the order dated 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.
Sh. Mukul Bhimani, Counsel for respondents no.1 to 3 stated that the debt has already been assigned to respondent no.5 and as such respondents no.1 to 3 don't have any role to play in the present appeal.
Sh. Sardvinder Goyal, Counsel for appellant after referring the judgment Fair Style Embroidery Works & another v. DRT-II & others, CWP No. 20243 and 16232 of 2025 decided on 12.09.2025 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court stated that the delay in filing the Securitization Application can be condoned under the provision of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. It is further argued that the DRT-I, Chandigarh while passing the impugned order has not considered the judgment passed by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court. He prayed that the impugned order dated 03.06.2026 be set aside and the other grounds as taken in the application be also consider by the DRT-I, Chandigarh.
Ms. Usha Singh, Counsel for respondent no.5 argued that the Securitization Application is like a suit and the period of limitation in filing the Securitization Application cannot be extended or enlarged and prayed that present appeal be dismissed.
The perusal of impugned order reflects that the DRT-I, Chandigarh in the impugned order has not considered the grounds as taken by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the Securitization Application and also not referred the judgment Fair Style Embroidery Works & another v. DRT-II & others, CWP No. 20243 and 16232 of 2025 which has also referred by the Counsel for the appellant.
After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 03.06.2026 is set aside. The DRT-I, Chandigarh is directed to re-decide the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing S.A. bearing No. 113/2024 after considering the grounds as taken by the appellant in the said application as well as in the light of judgment delivered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works & another v. DRT-II & others, CWP No. 20243 and 16232 of 2025.
The concerned parties are directed to appear before DRT-I, Chandigarh on 18.08.2026. The interim protection granted by the DRT-I, Chandigarh vide order dated 06.04.2026 shall remain in operation till the consideration of issue of limitation by the DRT-I, Chandigarh.
The copy of this order be sent to DRT-I, Chandigarh for information and compliance.