Disposed

Punjab National Bank v. Mr Chetan Thakkar

DRAT15 May 2026IA/759/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order, the Tribunal set aside an impugned order dated 30.09.2025 which decided an interlocutory stay application. The Appellant requested the lower court to reconsider the application afresh, uninfluenced by prior observations in the appealed order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.09.2025 set aside; DRT-I, Mumbai directed to decide the interim application afresh.

Punjab National Bank versus Mr Chetan Thakkar — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 759/2025 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

Misc. Appeal No. 197/2025

¶5

Between

¶6

Punjab National Bank … Appellant/s V/s.

¶7

Mr. Chetan Thakkar & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶8

Ms. Savita Nangare along with Mr. Vinod Nagula & Ms. Disha Shah, i/b M/s. Law Focus, Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

Mr. Rajesh Nagory, i/b Mr. Raj Dani, Advocate for Respondent No.1 to 3. Ms. Pooja Khara, Advocate for Respondent No.4.

¶10

-: Order dated: 15/05/2026: -

¶11

This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Mumbai, whereby Interlocutory Application No. 2010/2025 in Securitisation Application No. 154/2023 was allowed by way of impugned order. 2. The main prayer sought in I.A. No. 2010/2025 before the DRTI, Mumbai was to set aside the notice dated 01.08.2025 issued by the Learned Advocate Commissioner in respect of the property situated at Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, A-Wing, Triumph Building No. 6, C.T.S. No. 661/17, City of Joy, J.D. Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080.

¶12

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that she confines her arguments to the limited issue that the Learned DRT-I, Mumbai, while allowing the Interlocutory Application and granting interim relief, has virtually disposed of the entire Securitisation

¶13

¶14

Application itself. She would further submit that if the impugned order is permitted to stand, nothing substantial would remain for adjudication in the Securitisation Application; accordingly, the impugned order is in the nature of a final adjudication of the S.A. itself.

¶15

The Learned Counsel appearing for the parties would jointly submit across the bar that they have no objection if the DRT-I, Mumbai is requested to decide the interim application afresh, independently and uninfluenced by any observations made either in the present order or in the impugned order.

¶16

In view of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 is set aside and Learned DRT-I, Mumbai, is directed to decide the interim application afresh independently and uninfluenced by any observations made either in the present order or in the impugned order.

¶17

Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 197/2025 stands disposed of.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

VKC-11

¶20

Punjab National Bank v. Mr Chetan Thakkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Mr Chetan Thakkar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ifci Limited versus Anil Kumar Jain & Ors.

Mr Aditya Suhas Pathak and Anr. versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Ms Merrygold Enterprises through its partner Gaurav Chauhan versus Punjab National Bank

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

Shri Gautam Govindlal Shah versus Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Earth Devlopers