Published: · Source checked:
DRAT Delhi's Glaxy Education Society order made two different decisions: it condoned an 89-day delay in the appeal, then sent the underlying securitisation application's limitation issue back to DRT-II, Chandigarh. The 21 October 2026 remand did not itself decide that the original application was timely or that its delay must be condoned. Order, paragraphs 1–5.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Appeal No. 321/2026; I.A. 1604/2026; underlying S.A. NDN1305/2026 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | M/s Glaxy Education Society v. M/s Varthana Finance Private Limited and others |
Two proceedings, two limitation questions
The appellant's S.A., bearing NDN1305/2026, had been dismissed after its application for condonation of delay, I.A. 648/2026, was rejected on 26 May 2026. That rejection consequently ended the S.A. as time-barred. The borrower then brought Appeal 321/2026 and separately sought condonation of an 89-day appellate delay in I.A. 1604/2026. Paragraphs 1–2.
DRAT allowed the appellate condonation application. That cleared the way for considering the appeal; it was not a determination of the distinct delay in commencing the S.A. Conflating these stages would give the appellant more relief than the operative order contains.
Why the limitation question returned to DRT
Counsel submitted that the DRT had not considered the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Harsimran Singh decision. DRAT set aside the 26 May order and required fresh consideration of limitation in light of that authority or other judgments counsel might cite. It directed the parties to appear before DRT-II, Chandigarh on 29 October 2026. Paragraphs 3–6.
This note reports the remand and the authority's role in that direction. It does not independently state the High Court's ratio, reconstruct its docket history or infer a universal power to condone every late Section 17 application. Those questions require the complete primary High Court judgment and the applicable statutory framework. The DRAT order alone is not a substitute for that research.
What a remand does—and does not—establish
The rejected limitation decision no longer stood as the final answer in these proceedings. However, a direction to reconsider is not an instruction to decide in the applicant's favour. The limitation issue remained for the DRT, informed by the authorities and submissions to be placed before it. Paragraph 4.
Nor does this order determine the legality of the lender's enforcement measures. A borrower can secure reopening of a threshold issue while still needing to establish both the procedural basis for proceeding and the substantive challenge. The recorded appearance date is historical; the order does not establish what happened at that hearing or whether any later protection was granted.
A precise way to use this case
For a case-status note, maintain separate entries for the appellate delay, the S.A. delay and the substantive enforcement dispute. Record which application was allowed, which decision was set aside, and which issue was remanded. For written submissions following a remand, identify the actual authority the appellate forum required the DRT to consider, rather than quoting the remand as if it had supplied that authority's complete rule.
These are practical reading and drafting lessons from this particular order. They do not create a new filing period or an automatic condonation entitlement.
Questions about the remand
Were both delays finally condoned?
No. Paragraph 1 condones the appeal's 89-day delay; paragraph 4 remands the S.A. limitation issue.
Did DRAT decide the auction or possession dispute?
No substantive enforcement outcome is decided in this order. The operative relief concerns limitation reconsideration. Paragraphs 4–6.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 21 October 2026, paragraphs 1–6; official scanned pages 1–2. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.