AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.97/2025 (application for condonation of delay)
It is stated that the impugned order was passed on 24.09.2024 but the appeal could be filed beyond the period of 30 days. It is further stated that the appellant had filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in November 2024 which was withdrawn on 17.12.2024 with liberty to file appeal before this Tribunal. It is stated that a delay of 15 days was caused in filing the writ petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is also claimed. It is also stated that the final order dated 17.12.2024 of the High Court was uploaded belatedly on the Website on 23.12.2024 and the further delay is properly explained. In the circumstance, Sh.Rajeev Sagar, Advocate for the appellant stated that the delay of 92 days in filing the present appeal is properly explained. After considering all facts and the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed accordingly.
Misc. Appeal No.22/2025
The respondents filed SA. bearing no.370/2024 titled as M/s Top Exports & another V, Standard Chartered Bank & another which was stated to be pending before DRT-III, Chandigarh. The respondents/applicants before DRT argued that the possession of the secured asset was scheduled for 25.09.2024 and accordingly arguments were advance on interim relief. Reply to the S.A. was filed by the appellant vide Dy. No.15165 dated 23.09.2024 . DRT-III, Chandigarh vide the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 observed that the District Magistrate has not applied his mind and without verifying the facts has passed the order for taking physical possession of the secured assets on 25.09.2024 and as such said order cannot be sustained under law. DRT-III, Chandigarh ultimately restrained the appellant from taking physical possession of the secured asset in compliance of the notice dated 23.08.2024 issued by the Tehsildar, Ludhiana (South).
Sh. Rajeev Sagar, Advocate for the appellant stated that DRT-III, Chandigarh in the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 has wrongly observed that the representation filed by the borrower was received which was not replied as per the mandate of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is further stated that the S.A. is now listed before DRT-III, Chandigarh for final arguments, but has been getting adjourned from time to time. Sh. Rajeev Sagar vehemently argued that DRT has passed the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 on wrong facts and without appreciating the material on record.
Ms. Deepsikha, Advocate for the respondents has defended the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 and stated that now S.A. bearing no.370/2024 is listed for final disposal on 18.09.2026 and it would not be proper to set aside the order dated 24.09.2024 which was passed after due consideration of the matter on merit. It is also argued that the respondents were not served with the notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
It is appearing that S.A. bearing no.370/2024 is now listed for final arguments on 18.09.2026, the pleading as such have already been completed in the S.A. DRT-III, Chandigarh is directed to hear the arguments on 18.09.2026 or any other day so fixed by DRT-III, Chandigarh which is not beyond 15 days from 18.09.2026. DRT-III, Chandigarh is also directed to pronounce the judgment without any delay immediately after conclusion of the arguments on behalf of the parties. It is also directed that DRT-III, Chandigarh shall decide the S.A. without being influenced by any opinion expressed in the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 which are interim in nature.