[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Ambika Solvex Ltd. Through Its ... vs State Bank Of India on 16 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1533
1 WP-472-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 472 of 2026
M/S AMBIKA SOLVEX LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI
KAILASH CHANDRA GARG AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri R.S. Chhabra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Arpit Singh and
Shri Aman Arora- Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Yaswardhan Tiwari and Ms.Richa Tiwari - Advocate for the
respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition has been filed under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 17/12/2025 passed
by DRAT, Allahabad in Appeal No.210/2024 whereby the appeal filed by
the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present writ petition is filed
against the order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate
Tribunal in Appeal No. 210/2024 dismissing the Application under Section 5
of Limitation Act which was filed for condoning delay of 54 days in filing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1533
2 WP-472-2026
the appeal. The said appeal had been preferred by the petitioners against the
order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur
whereby Securitization Application No. 650/2023 before the DRT, Jabalpur,
challenging the sale notice and the consequent proceedings was dismissed.
Hence, the appeal was denied to be adjudicated on merits on the ground of it
being barred by limitation of 54 days. The petitioners' appeal before the
DRAT arose from proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act, during
the course of which the petitioners had entered into multiple One Time
Settlement (OTS) arrangements with the respondent bank, made substantial
payments, and raised disputes relating to cancellation of settlement and
enforcement. The said issues formed the subject matter of litigation before
the DRT, the High Court, and the Supreme Court.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that against the order passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P No.30065/2023, the respondent/Bank
has filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.17263/2024 whereby the
judgment passed by the High Court was set aside. However, the observation
was made that it will be open for the borrower to seek appropriate interim
relief before the DRAT in accordance with law. The interim relief granted by
the High Court in terms of the paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment will
continue to operate for a period of six weeks. It was further observed that the
DRAT will decide the application for interim relief without being influenced
by continuation of interim relief by the Court. After the said order, the
DRAT had also passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner. However,
at the time of considering the application for condonation of delay, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1533
3 WP-472-2026
authority has completely failed to consider the fact that the petitioner has
been prosecuting the remedy before the different Courts and further even the
Apex Court had continued the interim relief while allowing the Special
Leave Petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Counsel for the respondent argued that in the application filed for
condonation of delay, all such points were not taken by the writ petitioner.
The only ground he had taken for condonation of delay was the illness of his
brother and, therefore, the DRAt has rightly rejected the application as the
writ petitioner failed to prove the each day delay.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Inder
Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 livelaw (SC) 339 where
the Apex Court held that although a delay cannot be condoned without
sufficient cause, the case's merit cannot be discarded solely on the technical
grounds of limitation. A liberal approach should be taken in condoning
delays when the limitation ground undermines the merits of the case and
obstructs substantial justice. In the case of Baleshwar Dayal vs. Bank of
India & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 SCC 444 where considering the provisions
of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002), the Apex Court held that
the delay in filing an appeal under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002
can be condoned by the Appellate Tribunal.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and considering the law, we set
aside the order passed by the DRAT and grant liberty to the petitioner to file
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:1533
4 WP-472-2026
fresh and properly constituted application for condonation of delay and the
said application be filed within period of 10 days from today. And if such
application is filed within the said period, the Appellate Tribunal shall
consider and decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to
the parties.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed and disposed
of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
