Dismissed

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh v. Icici Bank Limited

DRAT20 Jun 2025IA/337/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a stay application regarding a fresh electronic auction notice. The Tribunal held that the applicants could not challenge the new notice without first moving a separate application to do so. However, the confirmation of the sale was deferred for three weeks to allow applicants to challenge the sale before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Stay application dismissed; confirmation of sale deferred for three weeks; applicants permitted to challenge sale before DRT via fresh application or amendment of prayer.

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAl (SHTTNO AT -C’HENNAI) LA. No. 337/2025 (Stay) In Misc. Appeal Dy No. -586/2025 Dated:.20.06.2025 The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioncrs/Appcllants for seeking urgent relief.

¶2

This I.A. Nd. 337/2025 in Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 586/2025 is filed seeking stay "of e-auction public notice dated 04.06.2025. Learned Counsel for Petitioncrs/Appellants submitted that the Pctitioners/AppeJlants filed S.A. No.176/2025 challenging c- auction public notice dated 26.02.2025. He filed l.A. No. 808/2025 seeking stay. Since that was dismissed, this appeal is filed along with waiver application.

¶3

This Tribunal passed order in I.A. No. 240/2025 directing the Petitioners/Appellants of make pre-deposit of 40% of Rs.GOfSoiOSO/-. Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appeiiants submits that as per direction of this Tribunal, pre-deposit was made. The Petitioners/Appellants were also ready to settle the loan with Respondent Bank. Despite that, Respondent Bank is not ready to accommodate with Petitioners/Appellants and issued fresh sale notice dated 04.06.2025, fixing the sale on 23.06.2025. Therefore, he seeks stay of sale proceedings. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank opposes this application on the ground that, though S.A. was filed challengihg the e-auction public notice dated 26.02.2025, no sale had taken place in pursuance of this notice. The Petitioners/Appellants challenged the sale notice .dated 23.04.2025, in this Appeal, this sale notice was not challenged before Tribunal at all. Therefore, main appeal itself is not maintainable.

¶4

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶5

Admittedly, there is no sale had taken place in pursuance of sale notice dated 26.02.2025 or sale notice dated 23.04.2025. Therefore, the Respondent Bank issued fresh sale notice on 04.06.2025, fixing the sale on 23.06.2025. Without challenging the sale notice before the Tribunal, either by filing a fresh Securitisation Application or by amending the prayer, the Pctitioners/Appcllants directly approached this Tribunal for stay. This cannot be entertained. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that the Petitioncrs/Appellants cannot be granted stay again si- sale proceeding in pursuance of sale notice dated 04.06.2025. In this view of the matter, stay application in I.A. No. 337/2025 is dismissed.

¶6

Learned Counsel for Petitioncrs/Appellants submits that the Respondent Bank can take the money deposited towards predeposit for entertaining this appeal and he is prepared to settle the remaining balance amount with the Respondent Bank. Though this Tribunal dismisses this stay application with regard to conduct of sale, the confirmation of sale be deferred for a period of three weeks.

¶7

Meanwhile, Petitioncrs/Appellants can approach Learned DRT, cither by way of fresh application or by amending the prayer to challenge the fresh sale measure. There shall be confirmation of sale alone deferred for a period of three weeks.

¶8

CHAIRFRRSCW. TOmI CHEKBAJ (tX-aiAROE. DRAT. XVMBAJI

¶9

MKS

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. versus Shambaba Cotton Industries

Shaila Ravindra Mithbavkar versus Uco Bank and Ors.

Shubham Rajendra Surana versus Union Bank of India

Arjun Ganesh Gaikward versus State Bank of India

Ms Gagan Enterprises th its prop satvinderkaur h sindhu versus South Indian Bank

Shilpi Bhatia versus Axis Bank