Swapnil Jijaba Bhingardeve v. the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

DRAT5 Aug 2025IA/486/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal fixed a pre-deposit of 25% of the claimed demand amount to be made by the petitioners within a specified timeframe as a condition for entertaining and preserving their appeal against an order rejecting an application for time extension.

What did the court decide?

Directive to deposit Rs. 28,58,934/- in two equal instalments by 19.8.2025 and 2.9.2025 to maintain the appeal; otherwise, the appeal stands rejected.

Swapnil Jijaba Bhingardeve versus the Karad Urban… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶2

IA No.486/2025 (WOD) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal Dy.No.1073/2025

¶4

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶5

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners/appellants is present in VC. Ld. Counsel for respondent bank is physically present.

¶6

Ld. Counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted this appeal is filed against the order passed in IA 1820/2025 in SA No.493/2025 on the file of DRT, Pune. The aforesaid SA was filed challenging the Section 13(2) Notice dated 2.12.2014, Section 13(4) Notice dated 28.11.2017 issued for taking symbolic possession of the suit property, to restrain the defendant bank from taking physical possession in accordance with the order of Ld. DM dated 18.11.2022 and intimation of Tahasidar dated 9.8.2023. When this SA is pending, petitioners filed IA 1820/2025 seeking extension of time by 3 months to settle the matter amicably or till the completion of Test Audit by the Competent Authority. On hearing the submissions of parties, Ld. Presiding Officer rejected the aforesaid IA. Therefore, this appeal is filed along with waiver application.

¶7

Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank opposed this waiver petitioners filed an application to stay the order passed in the aforesaid IA, wherein Ld. Presiding Officer passed a hand-written order, which reads as follows: application and submitted that after rejection of IA 1820/2025,

¶8

"Heard. No sufficient grounds. Even application is granted subject to deposit of 10% of demand notice by 21.6.2025, stay of execution of order passed in IA 1820/2025 is granted for a period of Appeal"

¶9

hocontd./

¶10

Appeal No.103/2025, which is pending before this Tribunal. He further submitted that amount due as on 3.8.2025 is Rs.1,14,35,735/- after apportioning the amount paid by the petitioners after issuance of demand, notice to the tune of It is further submitted that against this order bank filed Misc. Rs.28,79,366/-. Therefore, he prayed this Tribunal to order 50% of this amount as pre-deposit.

¶11

HIh

¶12

In view of the fact that both these matters are connected to each other, they are taken up together for hearing today.

¶13

Ihave considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶14

possession notice dated 13.11.2017, the amount due is Rs.63,64,898/- as on 12.11.2017. As per the respondent bank, the of demand notice. It is seen from the demand notice dated 2.12.2014, the amount demanded is Rs.37,48,501/-. Subsequently, as per the symbolic amount due as on 3.8.2025 is Rs.1,14,35,735/- after apportioning the amount of Rs.28,79,366/- paid by the petitioners after issuance

¶15

passed in IA 1153/2025 and the period granted came to an end on agent, IA 1820/2025 was filed for extension of period of three the loan amount within two months through OTS or otherwise. 16.6.2025. There was a direction in the said IA 1153/2025 to settle relief for extension of period to occupy the suit property as an occupation of the property as an agent of the bank vide order months to settle the loan amount or till completion of Test Audit by It is seen from the impugned order that petitioners are in Petitioners failed to do so. It is observed that without claiming Competent Authority. Thus finding that this application has no merits, it was rightly rejected by Ld. Presiding Officer.

¶16

During the submissions Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that first respondent is a Co-operative Bank and there is OTS Scheme introduced by the Government of Maharashtra, wherein

¶17

..Contd./-

¶18

seriously prejudiced. Ld. Counsel further submitted as per the respondent bank as to which category the petitioners fall in, whether under D1 orD3. There is Test Audit ordered by the same is pending. Though petitioners are willing to settle the loan bank takes possession of the property, petitioners' right will be account, however, due to variance in the amount claimed, it takes Competent Authority and the report is awaited. Meanwhile, bank time to reach an agreeable amount. He further submitted that if dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in re, Sidha and D3. There is a conflict between the petitioners and the has filed Stamp No.WPST/22528/2025 before the Hon'ble High claimed under Section 13(2) notice alone has to be considered for Neelkanth Paper Industries P. Ltd and another Vs. Prudent ARC Ltd made till the date of filing Section 14 application, the amount Court of Mumbai challenging the appointment of Auditors and the and others reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 12, if the challenge is entertaining the appeal. defaulted accounts are classified into three categories viz. D1, D2 determining the quantum of. pre-deposit to be made for

¶19

As already stated, Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank opposed the in IA 1820/2025 impugned in this appeal. order passed by Ld. Presiding Officer staying his own order passed

¶20

and paid a sum of Rs.4,72,000/-. But petitioners failed to pay the the two loan accounts of the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,14,00,000/- and the petitioners participated in the proceedings balance amount. Therefore, that OTS failed. However, the amount He further added that in the year 2023, there was an offer to settle to the aforesaid amount only, the amount due as on 3.8.2025 is arrived at Rs.1,14,35,735/-. paid under that OTS was also considered and after giving due credit

¶21

It is seen that impugned demand notice and possession notice had been issued in the year 2014 and 2017 respectively. We are now in

¶22

WContd/-

¶23

dne

¶24

maintain this appeal. L to be taken for arriving at the quantum of pre-deposit in order to the year 2025. The aforesaid amount is inclusive of interest. Therefore, the amount of Rs.1,14,35,735/- due as on 3.8.2025 has

¶25

to deposit 25% of Rs.1,14,35,735/- would meet the requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, for entertaining this appeal. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the petitioners

¶26

28,58,934/- within four weeks from today in two equal instalments, of Rs.14,29,467/- within two weeks thereafter i.e., on or before 2.9.2025, failing which, the appeal would stand rejected. from today i.e., on or before 19.8.2025 and the second instalment of which, the first instalment of Rs.14,29,467/-within two weeks Rs.1,14,35,735/-, which comes to Rs.28,58,933.75p, rounded off to Accordingly, petitioners are directed to deposit 25% of

¶27

above, Registry, DRAT, Mumbai is directed to number the Appeal, if it is otherwise in order and Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai shall invest the same in a Nationalized Bank for a reasonable period and renew it periodically, till further orders are passed. in favour of the Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai payable at Mumbai. In case pre-deposit is made within the stipulated period as mentioned The pre-deposit should be made in the form of Demand Draft drawn

¶28

Post the matter on 4.9.2025 for further proceedings along with Misc. Appeal No.103/2025.

¶29

Amy CHAIRPERSON/DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶30

¶31

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -MUMBAI

¶32

Regular Appeal Dy.No.345/2023 In IA No.251/2023 (WOD)

¶33

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶34

in VC. Reply of R3 in IA 417/2025 (COD) is filed. Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant and R1 and R3 are present

¶35

if any by then. At request of Ld. Counsel for both sides, post the matter on 21.8.2025 for arguments. Reply/counter by other respondents

¶36

N CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶37

¶38

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶39

Misc. Appeal No.199/2024

¶40

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶41

Ld. Counsel for both sides are present in VC.

¶42

any, by then. 19.8.2025 for arguments along with IA 790/2024 (stay) and IA At request of Ld. Counsel for both sides, post the matter on 791/2024 (Production of documents). Reply by respondents, if

¶43

(IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI) CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI

¶44

¶45

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶46

Misc. Appeal No.103/2025

¶47

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶48

for the appellant is present in VC. Ld. Counsel for the appellants is physically present. Ld. Counsel

¶49

413/2023 (stay) and with connected appeal Misc. Appeal Post the matter on 4.9.2025 for arguments, along with IA Dy.No.1073/2025.

¶50

CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶51

¶52

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶53

Regular Appeal No.58/2025

¶54

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶55

Ld. Counsel for both sides are in VC. Reply/Counter in IA 477/2025 (stay) is filed.

¶56

At request of Ld. Counsel for both sides, post the matter on 12.8.2025 for hearing the stay application along with main appeal.

¶57

CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶58

¶59

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶60

Regular Appeal No.45/2025

¶61

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶62

Ld. Counsel for appellant is present in VC. Ld. Senior Counsel Shir S.R. Rajagopal for respondent is physically present.

¶63

Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.

¶64

Orders reserved.

¶65

CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶66

¶67

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶68

Regular Appeal No.44/2025

¶69

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶70

Ld. Counsel for appellant is present in VC. Ld. Senior Counsel Shir S.R. Rajagopal for respondent is physically present.

¶71

Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.

¶72

Orders reserved.

¶73

CHAIRPERSON, DRẤT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶74

¶75

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶76

Regular Appeal No.43/2025

¶77

Dated: 5.8.2025

¶78

Ld. Counsel for appellant is present in VC. Ld. Senior Counsel Shir S.R. Rajagopal for respondent is physically present.

¶79

Heard Ld. Counsel for both sides.

¶80

Orders reserved.

¶81

¶82

CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶83

Swapnil Jijaba Bhingardeve v. the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnil Jijaba Bhingardeve v. the Karad Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Vijaya Bhagwat Jaware Propriter of M/s Om Btech Engineers versus Canara Bank

Mr Animesh Mishra and Anr. versus Punjab National Bank

M/S Gayatri Petroleum and 3 Ors. versus M/S Thane Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Ms Waman Enterprises through Its Prop Shri Ajay So Wamanrao Narkhede versus Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr Vipul Kanubhai Gadhesariya and Anr. versus the Authorized Officer Icici Bank

Ms Reefer India Logistics And 3 Ors. versus Bank Of Baroda And Anr.