Dismissed¶22

Ms Venkatesh Alied Solution Co. through Its Prop Santosh Venkatrao Singapure v. the Authorized Officer Rajendra Sing Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and Others

Bombay HC21 Apr 2026WP/4757/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation of one day; Securitization Application (Diary) No.9246/2017; sale certificate dated 15/03/2017; auction sale and adequacy of price; Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Mumbai; Misc. Appeal No.155/2022; Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, 2024 INSC 978; extraordinary writ jurisdiction; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench, 2026; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's contention that he came to know of the sale only on 26/04/2017 cannot be accepted, since the respondent bank handed him a demand draft of Rs.6,25,000/- for the excess amount received in the sale on 06/04/2017 and he accepted it. ¶17

Ms Venkatesh Alied Solution Co. through Its Prop Santosh Venkatrao Singapure vs the Authorized Officer Rajendra Sing Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal rightly refused to condone the one day's delay in filing the Securitization Application. +2 more

¶16

Court's answer

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The Debts Recovery Tribunal rightly rejected the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner on 01/05/2017.

¶17

Key takeaways

Applying Celir LLP (2024 INSC 978), even on merits the petitioner has no case, as admittedly he raised no objection regarding the inadequacy of price at any time before the sale.ratio¶21
The Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal rightly exercised their discretion in rejecting the delay condonation application with cogent reasons; no error of jurisdiction or law was committed, and no case was made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dismisses a writ petition challenging the order dated 18/12/2024 of the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing Misc. Appeal No.155/2022, whereby the DRT's refusal to condone a one-day delay in filing Securitization Application (Diary) No.9246/2017 against the sale certificate dated 15/03/2017 was upheld. The court found the petitioner's plea of ignorance of the sale untenable because he had accepted the bank's demand draft of Rs.6,25,000/- (excess sale proceeds) on 06/04/2017. On merits, invoking Celir LLP v. Sumati Prasad Bafna, 2024 INSC 978, the court noted the petitioner had raised no objection to the adequacy of the auction price at any time before the sale and therefore had no case. Finding no error of jurisdiction or law by either Tribunal, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:18676

¶2

1 928-WP-4757-25.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4757 OF 2025

¶5

M/S. VENKATESH ALIED SOLUTION CO., THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SANTOSH VENKATRAO SINGAPURE

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, RAJENDRA SING AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶9

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 21^st APRIL, 2026

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

This petition challenges the order dated 18/12/2024, passed by the Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Misc. Appeal No.155/2022.

¶13

On 01/05/2017, petitioner preferred Securitization Application (Diary) No.9246/2017 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, challenging the sale certificate dated 15/03/2017. Along with the said application, Misc. Application No.14/2017 was filed seeking condonation of one day’s delay. The said delay condonation application was dismissed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 16/03/2021. Petitioner, thereafter filed Misc. Appeal No.155/2022 challenging the order refusing to condone the delay. The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, by the impugned order has dismissed the appeal holding that there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 16/03/2021.

¶14

SVH

¶15

2 928-WP-4757-25.odt

¶16

Learned advocate for petitioner submits that only one day’s delay was there which ought to have been condoned in the facts of the present case. Before confirmation of sale, petitioner has deposited 70% of the loan amount and in the Debts Recovery Tribunal he has deposited Rs.5 Lakhs. According to him, valuable property of the petitioner is sold at a through away price, which has caused serious prejudice to him. He submits that before the Appellate Tribunal argument was advanced only on the point of delay and not on the merits of the matter. However, the Tribunal has erroneously rejected the appeal by taking into consideration the merits of the matter.

¶17

It appears from record that the symbolic possession of the assets of petitioner was taken on 01/12/2016 and the same was published in Lokmat newspaper on 04/12/2016. Physical possession of the petitioner’s properties was taken on 27/02/2017 and auction sale was fixed on 28/02/2017. The sale was confirmed on 15/03/2017. Respondent bank has handed over demand draft of Rs.6,25,000/- which was for excess amount received in the sale, to the petitioner on 06/04/2017. The same was accepted by the petitioner. Hence, contention of the petitioner that he came to know about sale only on 26/04/2017 cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has rightly rejected the delay condonation application filed by petitioner on 01/05/2017.

¶18

SVH

¶19

3 928-WP-4757-25.odt

¶20

5. In Celir LLP Vs. Mr. Sumati Prasad Bafna and

¶21

Others, reported in 2024 INSC 978 , the Apex Court has held that sale cannot be set aside on the grounds which are frivolous except on very limited grounds like fraud. It is also held that the purpose of open auction is to get the most remunerative price and as such the Courts shall exercise their discretion to interfere where the auction suffers from any fraud or inadequate consideration or interpreting that too with circumspection keeping in view the facts of each case. Admittedly, petitioner has not raised any objection regarding the inadequacy of price in the instant case at any time before the sale. In this view of the matter, even on merits the petitioner has no case.

¶22

The Debts Recovery Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal have rightly exercised their discretion while rejecting the delay condonation application of the petitioner by assigning cogent reasons. No error of jurisdiction or law is committed by both the Tribunals. No case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶23

(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

¶24

SVH

Ms Venkatesh Alied Solution Co. through Its Prop Santosh Venkatrao Singapure v. the Authorized Officer Rajendra Sing Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Venkatesh Alied Solution Co. through Its Prop Santosh Venkatrao Singapure v. the Authorized Officer Rajendra Sing Chief Manager and Authorized Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Pralhad Nalgire vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Mohammed Moinuddin S/O Mohammed Azimuddin vs Mohammad Moiddoin Mohammad Jahiroddin and Others

Amolsinh Pratapsinh Gour vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shrikant Vishwambhar Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Madhukar Chavhan vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Manohar Devidas Baviskar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others