Allowed

Ms Peak Agritech through it partner Deepak Eknath Mole v. Canara Bank

DRAT11 Apr 2025IA/224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal granted an extension of two weeks for the appellants to deposit the balance appeal security amount, considering their partial compliance and illness, rejecting the bank's objection regarding the self-operative nature of the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Two weeks extension granted from today for depositing the balance appeal security amount.

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL- MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI) I i i l.A. No. 224/2025 (Extension of Time) IN DN/ 381/2025 (MISC APPEAL ) i ! I
Dated: 11.04.2025 I I I I
1. This Tribunal passed order on 10.03.2025,
directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 50% i
of Rs.2,08,20,591/- which to comes i i
Rs. 1,04,10,295.50p rounded off to
Rs.1,04,10,296/- , out of which, Rs.25 Lakhs on
10.03.2025 and the balance of Rs.79,10,296/-
within four weeks from 11.03.2025, i.e. on or
before 08.04.2025, failing which Appeal would
stand rejected.
I 2. When the matter is taken up, Learned
Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that I
the Petitioners/Appellants complied with the
direction to deposit Rs.25 Lakhs from the date of
order and further deposited Rs. 10 Lakhs. Due to
ill-health of Petitioners/Appellants, the
to make Petitioners/Appellants. were not able
deposit of the balance amount, therefore, filed this

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-
MUMBAI
(SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
I
i
i
l.A. No. 224/2025 (Extension of Time)
IN
DN/ 381/2025 (MISC APPEAL )
i
!
I

Dated: 11.04.2025

I
I
I
I

1.
This Tribunal passed order on 10.03.2025,

directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 50%
i

of
Rs.2,08,20,591/-
which
to
comes
i
i

Rs. 1,04,10,295.50p
rounded
off
to

Rs.1,04,10,296/- , out of which, Rs.25 Lakhs on

10.03.2025 and the balance of Rs.79,10,296/-

within four weeks from 11.03.2025, i.e.
on or

before 08.04.2025, failing which Appeal would

stand rejected.

I
2.
When the matter is
taken up, Learned

Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that
I

the Petitioners/Appellants complied
with
the

direction to deposit Rs.25 Lakhs from the date of

order and further deposited Rs. 10 Lakhs.
Due to

ill-health
of
Petitioners/Appellants,
the

to make
Petitioners/Appellants. were not able

deposit of the balance amount, therefore, filed this

_TJJ _2>a)'2JD-2J5 V^rQ Application for extension of time for depositing the remaining amount.
3. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank
objected to the Application on the ground that the
order passed on 10.03.2025 is a self operative
order, i.e. failing to comply with the direction, the Appeal would stand rejected.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Auction
Purchaser submitted that when the order is a self
operative order, no indulgence can be shown to
Petitioners/Appellants and the Application filed for extension of time has to be dismissed.
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
SA 114/2025 filed challenging the sale and 6.
other measures, is still pending. This Appeal is
against the refusal to grant stay. When SA is
pending, and Petitioners/Appellants had already
deposited Rs.35 Lakhs as directed by this Tribunal,
this Tribunal is of the view that the
Petitioners /Appellants t should • be. given an
balance opportunity the amount. to pay

_TJJ _2>a)'2JD-2J5 V^rQ
Application for extension of time for depositing the
remaining amount.

3.
Learned
Counsel
for
Respondent
Bank

objected to the Application on the ground that the

order passed on 10.03.2025 is a self operative

order, i.e. failing to comply with the direction, the
Appeal would stand rejected.

4.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Auction

Purchaser submitted that when the order is a self

operative order, no indulgence can be shown to

Petitioners/Appellants and the Application filed for
extension of time has to be dismissed.

5.
Considered the rival submissions and perused
the records.

SA 114/2025 filed challenging the sale and
6.

other measures, is still pending.
This Appeal is

against the refusal to grant stay.
When SA is

pending, and Petitioners/Appellants had already

deposited Rs.35 Lakhs as directed by this Tribunal,

this
Tribunal
is
of
the
view
that
the

Petitioners /Appellants
t
should • be.
given
an

balance
opportunity
the
amount.
to
pay

•Accordingly Petitioners/Appellants arc granted twp' weeks’ time''from today for depositing the balance.
ordered amount. by this as ■on 10.03.2025, 7. Tribunal,.. Failing ‘to deposit the balance amount *or
'Waiver Application .without any further reference tp this Tribunal; 'before. 24.04.2025, would result in dismissal of the
Accordingly, this Application is allowed. 8.
9. Post the case on 29.04.2025, for compliance. ofpaympnt.
interim Order granted ;on 1.0.03.2025,, shall be extended till next hearing date. PAM CHAIRPERSON, DRAT,•CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT^MUMBAij

•Accordingly Petitioners/Appellants arc granted twp'
weeks’ time''from today for depositing the balance.

ordered
amount.
by
this
as
■on
10.03.2025,
7.
Tribunal,..
Failing ‘to deposit the balance amount *or

'Waiver Application .without any further reference tp
this Tribunal;
'before. 24.04.2025, would result in dismissal of the

Accordingly, this Application is allowed.
8.

9.
Post the case on 29.04.2025, for compliance.
ofpaympnt.

interim Order granted ;on 1.0.03.2025,, shall be
extended till next hearing date.
PAM
CHAIRPERSON, DRAT,•CHENNAI
(IN-CHARGE, DRAT^MUMBAij

Ms Peak Agritech through it partner Deepak Eknath Mole v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Peak Agritech through it partner Deepak Eknath Mole v. Canara Bank

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

Sachin Dinkar Patil versus M/s. Indian Bank

Reena Subhash Passi versus Unity Small Finance Ltd.

Mr Pareshbhai Lavjibhai Patel versus Capri Global Capital Limited

Kashish Trade link Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge versus Union Bank of India

Home First Finance Company India Limited versus Dipen Shah