Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v. The Authorized Officer the Bhagyodaya Co-Op Bank Limited

DRAT4 Apr 2025REGULAR APPEAL/24/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This interim order records arguments in an appeal challenging the dismissal of a delay condonation application. The appellant argued that no pre-deposit was needed based on a High Court divided bench ruling produced during arguments. The respondent bank opposed the waiver. The matter was adjourned for production of documents.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah versus The Authorized Officer… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI

¶2

Dy.No.i9 46/2024

¶3

Dated :2.4.2025

¶4

Ld. Counsel for both sides are present in VC.

¶5

Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant submitted that petitioner filed SA (D) .No.754/2023 challenging the sale notice dated 13.6.2023 fixing the sale on 3.7.2023."fhere was a delay of 5 days in filing the said SA. Thus, application to condone the delay of 5 days was filed in MA No.52/2023 and that was rejected as not maintainable oh 13.9.2023; Challenging the dismissal order, petitioner filed Appeal Dy.No.1707/2023 and that was allowed, and Ld. Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai directed Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-'I, Ahmedabad to restore MA No.52/2023 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law.

¶6

At the time of filing of this appeal, petitioner has filed IA 670/2023 seeking waiver of pre-deposit. Ld. Chairperson passed an otder on 10.8.2023 directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of Rs.1.20 cores in three instalments of which first instalment of Rs.35.00 lakhs and Rs.42.50 lakhs each as second and third instalments. Petitioner complied with the said condition.

¶7

After the matter was remanded to ORT below, Ld. Presiding Officer dismissed MA 52/2023 on the ground that each and every day delay has not been properly explained and also on the ground that financial constraints cannot be considered. Thereafter, petitioner filed this Regular Appeal Dy.No.1946/2024 along with waiver application IA 631/2024 (WOD) and stay application IA Dy.No.1949/2024.

¶8

Ld. Counsel further submitted that petitioner had already deposited Rs.1.20 crores towards pre-deposit while filing Appeal Dy.No.1707/2023, therefore, tirrTno need to make any deposit for entertaining the present appeal.

¶9

It is further submitted that Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Mumbai passed an order in Writ Petition No.12028/2022 observing that In an appeal filed against the order dismissing delay condonation application, pre-deposit is not required. Thus Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant prayed for entertaining the appeal and grant of stay.

¶10

In response, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank strongly opposed the waiver and stay application on the ground that challenge before Tribunal below was the sale notice dated 12.6.2023. This sale notice was served on the date of notice itself i.e., 12.6.2023 through Email service followed by Registered Post with acknowledgment due on 13.6.2023. Computing from 12.6.2023, 45 days would expire on 28.7.2023. However, SA was filed on 29.8.2023 with a delay of 31 days. Ld. Presiding Officer rightly held that delay was not properly explained and that the reason of financial difficulty in raising court fee is not acceptable for condoning the delay and proceeded to dismiss the delay condonation application.

¶11

She further submitted that judgment relied on by the petitioner/appellant will not be applicable to the fact of this case and sought time to place judgment in support of her case that pre deposit is mandatory.

¶12

Therefore, post the matter on 4.4.2025 for production of relevant judgment and for arguments.

¶13

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

¶14

Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v. The Authorized Officer the Bhagyodaya Co-Op Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah v. The Authorized Officer the Bhagyodaya Co-Op Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pothuguntla Vishnu Praveen Kumar versus The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Shivkumar Shankarrao Deshpande versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

N Kumar Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Nandkumar Harchandani versus Central Bank of India

Panchmukhi Freight Carrier and Umang J Rathod versus Union Bank of India

Ms S K Homes versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

M/s Primus Realtors Private Limited versus Union Bank of India