Allowed

State Bank of India v. Ms Choice Precitech India Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT11 Feb 2026MISC APPEAL/39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing an appeal, the DRAT set aside the DRT's order condoning a 1903-day delay in setting aside an ex parte decree. The court held that no sufficient cause existed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, merely proving prior knowledge of the address change.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowing condonation of delay dated 18.4.2024 is set aside; application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

State Bank of India versus Ms Choice Precitech India Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

Reportable/Non-Reportable

¶2

Judgment reserved on: 04.02.2026 Judgment delivered on: 11.02.2026

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶5

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024

¶6

(Arising out of M.A. 68 of 2023 in O.A. 3298 of 2017 in DRT-II, Hyderabad)

¶7

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶8

State Bank of India, Stressed Assets Recovery, Branch 2^nd Floor, APSRTC Commuter Amenity, Center Bus Terminal Complex, Koti, Hyderabad - 500 095.

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

-Versus-

¶11

M/s. Choice Precitech India Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Η No. 8-7-177/48/10/1/D, 1^st Floor Swarnadhama Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secundrabad - 500 011;

¶12

Sri B. Narayana Murthy son of Late Sri Seeramulu Η Νο 8-7-177/48/10/1/D, 1^st Floor Swarnadhama Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secundrabad - 500 011;

¶13

Smt. B. Sudha Murthy, wife of B. Narayan Murthy, Η Νο. 8-7-177/48/10/1/D, 1^st Floor Swarnadhama Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secundrabad – 500 011.

¶14

… Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Appellant … Ms. Mekhala Kanji Counsel for Respondents … Mr. Nemani Srinivas

¶16

JUDGMENT : 11^th February, 2026

¶17

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:

¶18

1. Instant appeal has arisen against the order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in M.A. 68 of 2023 arising out of O.A. 3298 of 2017 whereby Learned DRT allowed the M.A. and condoned the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 4.01.2018.

¶19

2. O.A. 3298 of 2017 was filed by the Appellant Bank against the Defendants, M/s. Choice Precitech India Private Limited, represented by its Managing

¶20

¶21

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata Sri B. Narayana Murthy and Smt. B. Sudha Murthy. The O.A. was decided ex parte against the Defendants on 4.01.2018 and Recovery Certificate for an amount of Rs. 9,14,39,539.00 with interest at the rate of 16.40% per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realisation, minus the amount of Rs.29.10 lac, was issued. M.A. was filed by the Defendants for setting aside the ex parte order along with I.A. for condonation of delay of 1903 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order.

¶22

3. It was stated that B. Narayana Murthy, Defendant No. 2, is the Managing Director of Defendant No. 1, M/s. Choice Precitech India Private Limited. He received a notice for proclamation of sale from the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Hyderabad in R.P. No. 229 of 2018 wherein it was informed that certificate was issued in the O.A. on 4.4.2018. No notice was served upon the Defendants. Service was already effected through publication Hans India English newspaper dated 25.8.2017 where in wrong address was mentioned while the Bank was very well aware of the new address of the petitioners.

¶23

4. It is further stated that the postal envelope was sent by the Counsel of the Bank and not by the Tribunal.

¶24

5. It was further stated that the Defendants have good case in the O.A., accordingly sought for setting aside the ex parte order with the condonation of delay.

¶25

6. Opposition was filed by the Bank challenging the contentions on the ground that the Defendants have

¶26

¶27

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata knowledge of the proceedings as some of the mortgaged properties were sold pending O.A. Writ Petition No. 13591 of 2023 was also filed by the Defendants wherein the same address was given. Hon’ble High Court order dated 16.11.2023 is not complied with by the Defendants, accordingly, there is no ground for condonation of delay.

¶28

7. Learned DRT held that the Bank was having knowledge about the change of address. However, notices were served at the old address on this ground alone, Learned DRT allowed the application for condonation of delay; which is under challenge.

¶29

8. Learned DRT allowed the application for condonation of delay of 1903 days merely on the ground of change of address and no notice having been sent in the changed address. Accordingly, Learned DRT found that there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay. An intimation was given to the Authorised Officer by the Respondent No. 2, namely B. Narayana Murthy. Subject, as mentioned in the application, was about release of immoveable articles wherein it is mentioned that “We are moving to 8-7-177/48/10/1/D, Swarnadhama Nagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad – 500 011”. On the basis this communication alone Respondents are claiming that no notice was served upon them on the said address. Respondent No. 1 is the Company with the address of Plot No. 216 and 217, Padmanagar Colony, Phase-II, HMT Township, District – Hyderabad. Intimation was allegedly given on

¶30

¶31

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata 19.1.2016. Thereafter, the appeal was filed by the Respondents with the address of Plots No. 216 and 217, Padma Nagar Colony, Phase-II, Qudbullapur Village Mandal, Malkajgiri District. Even in the S.A. same address is mentioned in the array of parties. Even the Writ Petition No. 26462 of 2019 filed before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad same address is mentioned by the Respondents. It would also be pertinent to mention here that it is admitted by the Respondents that they have received the postal envelope. In the Writ Petition No. 13591 of 2023, decided by the Hon’ble High Court on 16.11.2023, a direction was given by the Hon’ble High Court that subject to petitioners’, i.e., Respondents herein, depositing 50% of the amount due, as on today, as per the provision of the Bank (Rs.2,49,24,284.00) and their filing an appeal within a period of 30 days from today, same shall be entertained by the DRT. That order is also not complied with by the Respondents herein. All these facts specifically proves that the notices were duly served upon the Respondents at their own address which was Plots No. 216 and 217, Padma Nagar Colony, Phase-II, Qudbullapur V & M, Medchal, Village and Municipality, Malkajgiri District. 9. Learned DRT has committed a patent error in holding that the notices were not duly served upon the Respondents on the changed address.

¶32

10. Even in the application, moved before the DRT, in paragraph 3 it is stated that the Respondents herein came to know that the Respondent Bank has taken substantive

¶33

¶34

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata service of summons through paper publication. Respondents herein are taking advantage of limitation from the date of knowledge but no specific assertion is made as to when they came to know about the publication of summons or how they came to know about the same. It is all a vague ground.

¶35

11. Law is well settled that the Appellant is required to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs. -vs- Karnataka Housing Board and Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 9169) the Hon’ble Apex Court, in paragraphs 40 and 115 held that:

¶36

“40. As such, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay in filing of an appeal or application, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in the filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a "sufficient cause" that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to actual date of filing of such appeal or application, as the case may be, or to put it simply, explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation began to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonation of delay by recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.”

¶37

“115. However, as is manifest from the entire discussion above, for the purpose of condonation of delay in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay has to be explained by establishing the existence of "sufficient cause" for the entirety of the period from when the limitation began till the actual date of filing. In other words, if the period of limitation is 90-days, and the appeal is filed belatedly on the 100th day, then explanation has to be given for the entire 100-days.”

¶38

12. No sufficient cause could be shown by the Respondents herein for condonation of delay of 1903 days. Application is moved simply to drag on the proceedings wherein huge public money is due to be recovered. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that DRT has committed

¶39

¶40

Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2024-DRAT-Kolkata manifest error in passing the impugned order which is liable to be set aside.

¶41

O R D E R

¶42

Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the Learned DRT-II, Hyderabad, in M.A. 68 of 2023 arising out of O.A. 3298 of 2017, is set aside. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed before the Learned DRT also stands dismissed.

¶43

File be consigned to Record room.

¶44

Copy of the Judgment/Final Order be uploaded in the Tribunal’s Website.

¶45

Order signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶46

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶47

Dated: 11^th February, 2026 ac

State Bank of India v. Ms Choice Precitech India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Ms Choice Precitech India Pvt. 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

Similar cases

Dev Rishabh Real Estate Private Limited versus Indian Overseas Bank

Demas Developers Private Limited versus Indian Overseas Bank

Alvita Realtors Private Limited versus Indian Overseas Bank

Anil Kumar Sharma versus Aditya Birla Finance Limited and Others

T P Surya Chandra Rao versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd.

Smt. Mohammed Haseena Begum versus Piramal Finance Limited