AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sh. Praful Shukla, Counsel for the appellant stated that he had made the balance pre-deposit in terms of order dated 18.05.2026 and also placed the copy of demand draft on record.
Argument heard.
The present appeal is filed to impugn the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the DRT-Jaipur in S.A. bearing No.557/2023 titled as Vikram Singh Rathore & another v. Mentor Home Loans India Limited, whereby the SA filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed being time barred. The DRT-Jaipur after comparing the signature of the appellant on the acknowledgement pertaining to the notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act observed that the said signature was of appellant. The order dated 10.07.2025 is reproduced as under:-
Case No.SA/557/2023
VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE Vs MENTOR HOME LOAN INDIA PVT
Date: 10.07.2025.
Proceedings through hybrid mode
Present: Shri Atul Saxena, Counsel for the Applicant
Shri Alok Mathur, Counsel for the Respondent Bank/FI In this matter, an IA has been moved for challenging the auction to be conducted by the bank.
Counsel for the respondent submits that this SA is highly time barred. Applicant has come after six years to challenge the action of bank.
Counsel for the applicant submits that bank has placed everything regarding notice under Section 13(2) and its service, but nothing has been placed in respect of notice under section 13(4). Counsel for the respondent has filed the notice under section 13(4) which is received by the applicant herein.
Despite being shown that the notice duly acknowledged by the applicant, the counsel submits that bank has not affixed nor has filed any other proof of service.
So far as, the signature on the documents is concerned, Counsel for the applicant says that I am not an handwriting expert. However, Tribunal has verified the signatures, they are of the applicant herein.
This is clear that the SA is time barred, it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, SA stands disposed of, all pending IAs also stands disposed off, if any.
File be consigned to record as per rules. Copy of order be uploaded on website.
Sh. Praful Shukla, Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has also filed another SA which was declined to be registered by the Registrar and the Chamber Appeal bearing No.01/2021 was also dismissed vide order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the DRT-Jaipur. Sh. Shukla after referring the said order dated 25.03.2021 stated that it is reflecting from the perusal of said order that the subject property was put to auction in the year 2021 and thereafter there was no occasion for the respondent to put the subject property again on auction. He vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is in confliction with the order dated 25.03.2021. He argued that the present appeal be allowed and the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 be set aside.
Sh. Samay Maheshwari, Counsel for the respondent stated that it is clearly reflecting from the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 that the acknowledgement pertaining to the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was signed by the appellant and the DRT-Jaipur after proper verification of the signature of the appellant finally held that the SA bearing No.557/2023 is barred by limitation.
The perusal of the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 reflects that the appellant has not disputed the service of notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is also reflecting that the acknowledgement pertaining to the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was also having the signature of the appellant. The DRT has taken a right and correct view that the SA was time barred which was filed after expiry of six years.
In view of the above, this Tribunal is of the opinion that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 which warrants any interference by this Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
The pre-deposit which has also been made by the appellant shall be refunded back to the appellant as per rules.