Partly allowed

Uco Bank v. Akshara Highrise Pvt. Ltd. and Nandini Impex Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT4 Nov 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal arising out of an application under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Debts Recovery appellate tribunal declined a prayer but allowed the application for expeditious hearing. The tribunal directed the lower DRT to decide the pending stay application within four weeks and imposed a cost regime for delays.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed with direction to Decided DRT to decide the pending S.A. No. 443 of 2021 expeditiously within four weeks; heavy cost to be imposed on Bank for delays.

Uco Bank versus Akshara Highrise Pvt. Ltd. and Nandini Impex… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶3

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1125 of 2025

¶4

(Arising out of S.A. No. 443 of 2021 in DRT-3, Kolkata)

¶5

Order No. 03 04.11.2025

¶6

UCO Bank & Anr. ……Appellant -VsAkshara High Rise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sarbajit Mukherjee, Learned Counsel, Mr. S.N. Patra Bhatta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

¶8

Mr. Nimish Mishra, Learned Counsel (virtual), Mr. A. Guha, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1

¶9

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶10

In compliance of order dated 28.10.2025, affidavit is filed by the Appellants.

¶11

Heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. At the very outset Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that they are pressing prayer (a) of the Application. They have also explained the reasons for seeking the relief under prayer (a).

¶12

Having considered the submissions relief sought for in prayer (a) could not be granted and is accordingly declined.

¶13

Now as far as question of expeditious hearing of S.A. No. 443 of 2021 is concerned, it is submitted that the matter is pending since 2021 wherein huge public money is involved. Matter is now listed in February, 2026 before the

¶14

¶15

Learned DRT which is the reason of moving an application under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the Respondents/ opposite parties submits that they have no objection if the matter is heard expeditiously.

¶17

Having considered the submissions, I allow the Application with a direction to the Learned DRT to decide the pending S.A. No. 443 of 2021 expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that if any adjournment is being sought for by either of the parties, same can only be granted by the DRT if the ground is found to be sufficient by recording a reasoned order. In case any interim order exists in favour of the S.A. Applicant and DRT is of the view that the same is being misused, Learned DRT would also be at liberty to vacate the same. However, if delay is caused by the opposite party/ Respondent in the S.A./ Bank, Learned DRT should impose heavy cost upon the Bank and may also close their right to opposition to S.A.

¶18

Parties are directed to appear before the Learned DRT on 12^th November, 2025 for hearing. Let a copy of this order be communicated to DRT-3 Kolkata by the Registry by tomorrow. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the parties.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶20

Dated 4^th November, 2025 7/tp

Uco Bank v. Akshara Highrise Pvt. Ltd. and Nandini Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Akshara Highrise Pvt. Ltd. and Nandini Impex Pvt. Ltd.

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

Pratyaksha Pvt. Ltd. versus Federal Bank and Ors.

Himanshu Das versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

M/s Shree Ambey Jewellers through its Partner Smt Meena Soni versus India Sme Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.

Prakaram Land and Development Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Prakaram Land and Development Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Prakaram Land and Development Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda