This single-page order by the DRT Appellate Tribunal allowed an interim application for amendment of parties following a bank employee's death and condoned the appellant's significant delay in filing the appeal.
The application for amendment was allowed and the delay of 2,991 days in filing the appeal was condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson I.A. Diary No. 1316/2026 (Amendment)
I.A. No. 387/2026 (CoD)
In
Regular Appeal Diary No. 993/2026
Between
M/s. Shardavidya Foods International Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.
M/s. Himraj Sheet Gurha Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 04/08/2026: -
Present:
Mr. Bhavesh Poojari along with Mr. Vishal Tambe, i/b Ms. Reetika K., Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. Keetika Kamthan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yash Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
No representation for the other Respondent despite repeated calls.
1
the Applicant from the auction purchaser; that, Respondent No. 4 has expired; that, his legal heirs are required to be brought on record. Therefore, the amendment application needs to be allowed.
He would further submit that the Applicant came to know of the existence of the impugned order only upon receipt of a notice dated 15.04.2026 issued by the Office of the Tahsildar, Pandharpur,
2
proposing mutation in the revenue records in respect of Land Property No. 826/1B, Village Wakhari, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur and It was only through the said notice that the Applicant became aware of the impugned order. Accordingly, the delay occurred solely on account of the Applicant's lack of knowledge of the impugned order.
She would submit that she has no instructions as to whether Respondent No. 1/Borrower has initiated any proceedings for mutation in respect of Land Property No. 826/1B, Village Wakhari, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur.
She would concede that the Applicant, being the subsequent purchaser, was never a party to any stage of the litigation initiated either by Respondent No. 1 or by the Bank in respect of the secured asset.
3
Sd/Chairperson
Psa-17
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of approximately 2,991 days in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Whether the applicant, a subsequent purchaser of the secured asset, was negligence-conscious in not filing the appeal earlier due to lack of notice.
M/s. Shardavidya Foods International Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Himraj Sheet Gurha Pvt. Ltd.
Vivek Bharti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
