Allowed

Ms Kanan Weighing Systems v. Union Bank of India

DRAT24 Jul 2026MISC APPLICATION/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tribunal allowed the restoration of a dismissed appeal subject to payment of costs. Registry directed registration of an ancillary application for restoration of possession pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Allowed M.A. No. 26/2026 subject to payment of ₹5,000/- cost. Ordered registration of application Diary No. 1308/2026 for restoration of possession.

Ms Kanan Weighing Systems versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson M.A. No. 26/2026 (Restoration)

¶2

¶3

(Regular Appeal No. 67/2024-Dismissed)

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s. Kanan Weighing Systems … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Union Bank of India & Ors.

¶7

…Respondent/s

¶8

-: Order dated: 24/07/2026: -

¶9

Present:

¶10

Mr. Mohd. Asadullah Shaikh along with Ms. Mansi Bhalerao, Advocate for Appellant.

¶11

Ms. Mable S., along with Ms. Naina Chheda, i/b M/s. Mable & Associates, Advocate for Respondent No.1/Bank.

¶12

Heard on application M.A. No. 26/2026 for restoration of appeal.

¶13

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that Regular Appeal No. 67/2024 was listed on 18.03.2026. However, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant could not appear on that date consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. Upon coming to know of the dismissal, the Appellant filed the present M.A. No. 26/2026 for restoration on 02.04.2026 within the period of limitation.

¶14

¶15

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would further submit that the reason for his non-appearance was that he was engaged in another matter listed before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi. Consequently, he could appear when the appeal was called out and by the time he arrived, the matter had already been heard and dismissed for default.

¶16

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank has no objection to allow the restoration application, however, subject to cost as the inconvenience and delay have been caused to the Respondent.

¶17

In view of the above, M.A. No. 26/2026 is allowed subject to payment of cost of ₹5,000/- to Prime Minister Relief Fund to be deposited within two weeks.

¶18

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would further submit that he has filed another application Diary No. 1308/2026 for restoration of possession as the Respondent Bank as possession of the property has been taken over by the Bank after the dismissal of the appeal.

¶19

He would submit that the said application is still under diary number.

¶20

Accordingly, the Registry is directed to register the said application, if it is otherwise found to be in order and defects removed.

¶21

At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank

¶22

¶23

seeks time to file the reply to the said application.

¶24

The reply be filed within two weeks with an advance copy to the Appellant.

¶25

The rejoinder, if any, be filed within a week thereafter.

¶26

The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Respondent Bank has not only taken possession of the property but also served the Appellant with the notice to dispose of movable goods/articles lying in the subject property.

¶27

He would further submit that by order dated 20.07.2026, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has directed the Respondent Bank not to act upon the said notice till 24.07.2026

¶28

Drawing strength from the aforesaid direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 20.07.2026, the Respondent Bank is directed not to act upon the notice to disposal of the movable goods/articles lying in the subject property till the next date of hearing. The Respondent Bank is further directed not to hand over possession of the property to the Auction Purchaser till the next date of hearing

¶29

List the case on 28.10.2026 for hearing.

¶30

Sd/Chairperson

¶31

Psa-02

¶32

Ms Kanan Weighing Systems v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Kanan Weighing Systems v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Suresh Nandan Menon

Manojkumar Lunkad versus Punjab National Bank

Shailaja Uddhav Metkar and Ord versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Export Import Bank of India versus Mr Prashant S Ruia

Krishidhan Vegetable Seeds Private Limited versus Axis Bank

Abdul Kayum Tamboli and Ors. versus Bank of India