Niharika Print Exports Private Limited vs Union Bank of India

The instant application is filed for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal due to the reasons as mentioned in the application. After considering all facts, the delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly.

The appellant filed S.A. bearing NDN No.1035/2026 which was stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. DRT-II, Chandigarh vide impugned order dated 29.04.2026 has dismissed the S.A. on the ground of limitation. The appellant filed application bearing I.A. No.525/2026 for condonation of delay of 13 days in filing the S.A. and DRT-II, Chandigarh observed that the application for seeking condonation of delay is not maintainable and referred the judgement decision delivered by the Supreme Court in The Property Company Private Limited V Rohinten Daddy Mazda 2026 Supreme (SC) 36.

Sh. Prabhat Kumar Rai, Advocate for the appellant stated that the I.A. No.525/2026 was dismissed on wrong legal premises that the limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable and to support his argument, he referred judgement delivered by Supreme Court in Baleswar Dayal Jaiswal V Bank of India & others (2016) 1 SCC 44. He further argued that the present appeal be remanded back for fresh consideration of I.A. No.525/2026 by DRT-II, Chandigarh.

Sh. U.N. Singh, Advocate for the respondent stated that the appellant was served with the notice under Section 13(2) dated 16.04.2019 and possession notice dated 16.08.2019 much earlier i.e. in the year 2019. It was also stated that the subject property was put to auction on many occasions and finally it was sold in successful auction conducted on 13.02.2026. It is also argued that the S.A. hopelessly, is time-barred and the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by DRT-II, Chandigarh was defended.

It is reflecting from the impugned order that the application bearing I.A. No.525/2026 for condonation of delay of 13 days was dismissed on the premise that the said application is not maintainable and the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act must be initiated within a period of 45 days from the date of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. However, in the case of Baleswar Dayal Jaiswal V Bank of India & others (2016) 1 SCC 44, the Supreme Court has observed that the DRT and DRAT are having the power to condone the delay by resorting to the provisions under limitation in relation to application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act or an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed to the extent that I.A. No.525/2026 is remanded back to DRT-II, Chandigarh for fresh consideration and disposal, after considering and referring the law as cited by the counsel for the appellant.

The counsels for the parties are directed to appear before DRT-II, Chandigarh on 17.08.2026 with a direction to DRT-II, Chandigarh to decide the application bearing I.A. No.525/2026 within a maximum period of 15 days from the appearance of the parties.