Disposed

Mayur Pravin Chavda and Anr. v. Karur Vysya Bank

DRAT29 Jan 2024IA/622/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the Securitisation Application filed by the auction purchaser to condone a 76-day delay in filing an appeal. While the delay was condoned subject to payment of ₹10,000 costs, the application to set aside the DRT order was dismissed due to the appellate time limit.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 76 days is condoned subject to payment of ₹10,000 costs; Securitisation Application set aside.

Mayur Pravin Chavda and Anr. versus Karur Vysya Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 622/2023 (CoD)

¶2

In Appeal on Dairy No. 948/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Mayur Pravin Chawda & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. The Karur Vyasya Bank Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr Sachin Kaikini, Advocate for Appellants. Ms Meenu P. i/b M/s M.V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Bank

¶6

Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.

¶7

Order dated: 29/01/2024:-

¶8

The Appellant is the auction purchaser who is aggrieved by the allowing of the Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 127 of 2020 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal –II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) setting aside the auction sale in favour of the Appellants vide order dated 31.03.2023 and hence, the Appellants are in appeal. There is a delay of 76 days in filing the appeal. The Appellants seek to condone that delay. The explanation offered by the Appellants for delay is that they were under the impression that the creditor bank would come up in appeal and also state that he was given assurance by the bank that the appeal would be preferred by the bank but ultimately, the bank did not file any appeal, in order to protect the sale in his favour he has preferred an appeal and therefore, they seek to condone the delay.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 who

¶10

¶11

are the borrowers has vehemently opposed the application and also filed a reply stating that the reasons stated for condoning the delay are not sufficient and satisfactory.

¶12

The Respondent bank has not filed any reply on the application for condonation of delay but the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank has vehemently opposed the application verbally stating that the contention regarding the assurance given by the bank to file an appeal is not admitted by him.

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur in Sanjay v/s Vinayak MANU/MH/2936/2023 wherein the High Court declined to condone a delay of 1014 days in filing the appeal stating that the Appellant did not receive a summons of suit which was ultimately found to be false. An analogy cannot be a ground with the fact of that case with the case in hand because with the case in hand, there is only a delay of 76 days whereas in the reported decision there is a delay of 1014 days. The reasons given in that decision was that the Applicant did not receive any summons in the suit which was found to be false but in the instant case, the explanation given by the Appellants is that they were under the bona fide impression that the impugned order was going to be challenged by the bank which it did not. Given the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank, no assurance was given, the explanation given by the Appellants cannot be accepted in toto. However, I find that no prejudice will be caused to the Respondents by condoning the delay. The Appellants will have to be put some costs and therefore, the delay of 76 days is condoned subject to the payment of costs of ₹10,000/-

¶14

¶15

to the D.R.T. Bar Association, Mumbai for the purchase of books and periodicals within a week failing which the application shall stand dismissed.

¶16

Post on 07.02.2024 before the Registrar for compliance regarding payment of costs.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

mks-26

¶19

Mayur Pravin Chavda and Anr. v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Pravin Chavda and Anr. v. Karur Vysya Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M S Vastupal Industrial Fasteners Steels and Anr. versus Union Bank of India

Govinda Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

M/S Mission Industries, through Its Partner - Mr. Yogesh S/o Gajanan Bawankule, versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)

State Bank of India versus Mr C P Ravindranath Menon Liquidator, Bank of Karad(In Liquidator)

Sony Mony Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Asset Care and Recponstruction Enterprises

Mr Kalpeshkumar Dhirajlal Kothari and Ors. versus Hdfc Bank Limited