Disposed

Ramnivas Jagnnath Mandhani v. Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada

DRAT11 Dec 2024IA/602/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order addressed an I.A. for condonation of delay and subsidiary defects in two appeals filed by a creditor bank and an auction purchaser against a DRT order setting aside measures under the SARFAESI Act. The debt recovery appellate tribunal found the reasons for delay sufficient and allowed the condonation of delay for both appeals.

What did the court decide?

Applications for condonation of delay in filing two appeals were allowed, and appeals are directed to be taken on file.

Ramnivas Jagnnath Mandhani versus Murlidhar Ramgopal… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.603/2024 (CoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.1096/2024 Between The Chikhli Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s

¶4

V/s.

¶5

Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶6

Ms Dimple Tejani i/b Mr R.D. Sakhare, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Mr Amit A. Yadkikar (through video-conferencing), Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶8

AND

¶9

I.A. No.602/2024 (CoD) In

¶10

Appeal on Diary No.1100/2024

¶11

Between

¶12

Ramnivas Jagnnath Mandhani … Appellant/s V/s.

¶13

Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶14

Mr Amit A. Yadkikar (through video-conferencing), Advocate for Appellant.

¶15

Ms Dimple Tejani i/b Mr R.D. Sakhare, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶16

-: Common Order dated: 11/12/2024:-

¶17

The Appeal at Diary No. 1096/2024 is filed by the Creditor Bank and the Appeal at Diary No. 1100/2024 is filed by the Auction Purchaser. Both these appeals are directed against the impugned order dated

¶18

¶19

21.03.2024 in Securitisation Application No. 141/2024 (S.A.) by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (DRT) setting aside the demand notice and in consequence, the entire Sarfaesi measures were quashed and the sale in favour of the auction purchase was set aside. The bank as well as the auction purchaser are aggrieved and hence, in appeal.

¶20

There is a delay of 16 days in filing Appeal No. 1096/2024 by the bank whereas the auction purchaser has filed the appeal with a delay of 24 days. They have both sought the condonation of delay. The reason for the delay has been explained in these applications for condonation of delay filed as I.A. Nos. 602/2024 & 603/2024 respectively.

¶21

The respondent borrower has filed replies to the appeal and interim applications for stay. The delay has been opposed by the respondent but there is no appearance for the respondent to substantiate that reply.

¶22

On going through the delay, I find that the delay has been sufficiently explained and therefore, there is no reason to decline for granting the condonation of delay. The applications are allowed and the delay in filing these two appeals is condoned. The registry is directed to take these appeals on file if there are no other defects to be cured.

¶23

List the matters on 26.12.2024 before the Registrar.

¶24

psa-21 & 22

¶25

Ramnivas Jagnnath Mandhani v. Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramnivas Jagnnath Mandhani v. Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Repute Foods Private Limited and Ors. versus Central Bank of India

Bholenath Industries and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank

Origami Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Mrs Maria Mathew versus Deustche Bank

The Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada

Re Infra a Partnership Firm and Ors. versus Central Bank of India

Mr Pravin Dhirajlal Gediya versus Icici Bank Limited