Allowed

Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd.

DRAT13 Nov 2025MISC APPEAL/64/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal was filed by banks to challenge the DRT-II's order declining to condone a 69-day delay in filing an appeal against a Recovery Officer's dismissal of a property attachment application. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 69-day delay in filing the appeal. Direction to the DRT-II Chennai to number and dispose of AP SR No. 10192/2019 on merits.

Punjab National Bank & Ors. versus M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 13^th of November 2025

¶3

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA 64/2019

¶6

(Arising out of the order in MA 154/2019 in Appeal Sr.No. 10192 of 2019 on the file of the DRT-II, Chennai)

¶7

Punjab National Bank

¶8

Represented by its Chief Manager,

¶9

Large Corporate Branch, Rayala Towers, I

¶10

II Floor, 781-785 Anna Salai, Chennai-2

¶11

United Bank of India

¶12

Represented by its Assistant General Manager,

¶13

Branch office at Old No.45,

¶14

New No.23, Sreepuram, Chennai-600 014

¶15

1 street, Royapettah

¶16

Presently merged with Punjab National Bank,

¶17

State Bank of India

¶18

Represented by its Chief Manager Branch office at No.232, NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001.

¶19

Indian Bank [Formarly ALL ahabad Bank] Represented by its Chief Manager Branch office at George Town, Armenian Street Chennai-600 001

¶20

Amendment carried out as per the order passed in IA.No's 5448 by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal

¶21

The Karur Vysya Bank Limited Represented by its Chief Manager Branch office at Dev's Ark, AD 79&80,5th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai-40.

¶22

¶23

Union Bank of India [Formerly Corporation Bank] Represented by its Asst. General Manager Branch office at No.38 & 39, whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. Amendment carried out as per the order passed in IA 02.01.2025 by this Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal)

¶24

Indian Overseas Bank Represented by its Chief Manager Branch office at No.98-A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai -600 004. ...Appellants

¶25

AND

¶26

M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd

¶27

Represented by its Managing Director Mr.B.Arvind Shah, S/o. Mr.Babhutmaliji Shah Having Registered office at New No.190, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai -600 084 And also at No.38,39 & 40, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Tiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu-602 003 And also at Plot No.G28&29, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukotai, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu-602 105, Presently represented by Official Liquidator Office of Official Liquidator Rajaji Salai, Chennai-1 impleaded as per order Dated 19.01.2017 passed in IA No. 23 of 2017.

¶28

Mr. B. Arvind Shah, S/o Mr. Babhutmaliji Shah, Residing at No.30/2 Flowers Road, Kilpauk, Chennai -84.

¶29

¶30

IDBI Bank Limited, Specialized Corporate Branch, Rep. by its Deputy Manager, Having Office at No.7, Chevalier Sivaji Ganesan Salai, (South Boag Road) T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. .. Respondents

¶31

Counsel for Appellants : Mr. M.L. Ganesh Counsel for Respondent-1 : Mr. S. Gopalakrishnan Counsel for Respondent-2 : Mr. A. Arokia Satheesh R3 given up

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This appeal is filed against the order passed in MA 154/2019 in AP SR.No.10192/2019 by the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai declining to condone the delay of 69 days in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Recovery Officer in DRC 242/2018 in OA 298/2016 on 08.05.2019.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submitted that the appellants-Bank filed an application for attachment of non-mortgaged property. The learned Presiding Officer, without going into the merits of the case, especially, the fact that the property was already attached by the learned Presiding Officer when OA 298/2016 was pending, dismissed the application. As against the

¶35

¶36

said order, application in AP SR.No. 10192/2019 was filed along with an application to condone the delay of 69 days. The learned Presiding Officer, without considering the merits in the case and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd., - Vs. – The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And others, declined to

¶37

condone the delay, necessitating filing of this appeal.

¶38

This appeal was heard at length on 11.11.2025 and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants was recorded. Since there was no representation for the respondents, it was adjourned to today for the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. It was made clear that since the appeal is pending from 2018, the appeal would be disposed even if the learned counsel for the respondents does not make submissions. Despite that there is no representation for the respondents today.

¶39

From the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, it can be gathered that despite there being attachment during the pendency of the OA, the Recovery Officer, vide order dated 08.05.2019, dismissed the application filed for attaching nonmortgaged property. Due to administrative reasons, there was a

¶40

¶41

delay of 69 days in filing the application against the order of the Recovery Officer.

¶42

Since the delay in filing the application against the order of the Recovery Officer is only 69 days, satisfying with the reasons for the delay and with a view to give an opportunity to the appellant to adjudicate the appeal in AP SR.No.10192/2019 on merits, the delay of 69 days is condoned and the learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Chennai is directed to number the AP SR No. 10192/2019, if it

¶43

is otherwise in order, and dispose the same on merits and in accordance with law. This MA 64/2019 is ordered accordingly.

¶44

Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶45

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

[Dictated in the open Court to Steno (RA), transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me, this 13^th day of November, 2025]

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶49

Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd.

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit D Shah versus Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

Amit D Shah versus Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

Gita Power versus Punjab National Bank

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, versus State Bank of India

Sv Trading versus Religare Finvest Limited

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. versus S a Chandrasekar