The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous appeal before it for non-compliance with an earlier order directing the deposit of instalments as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
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. No. 280/2024 (WoD)
In
Misc. Appeal Diary No. 730/2024
Between
Salman Kadir Chhaware & Anr. V/s.
… Appellant/s
The Authorised Officer, …Respondent/s
Nirmal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Mr. Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellants appeared through a Video Conference.
Mr. Rohan Sawant, i/b M/s. Dewani Associates, Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated: 21/04/2026: -
Vide order dated 25.03.2026 the Appellants were directed to deposit ₹24,17,334/- as per section 18 of the SARFAESI Act and the order stated that if the Applicants/Appellants fail to deposit either of the instalments, the Appeal will stand rejected.
The office report reflects that the UTR of the first instalment does not match and deposit of the 2nd instalment has not been paid with.
Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal Diary No. 730/2024 is dismissed for non-compliance.
All pending I.As., if any stand dismissed.
Chairperson
At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant appears through Video Conference and submits that the 2nd instalment could 1
not be fully deposited within the stipulated time; that, only ₹5,00,000/out of ₹12,08,667/- would be deposited. He would further submit that the Appellants had filed an online application seeking extension of time to deposit the balance amount of the 2nd instalment on 15.04.2026.
As stated hereinabove, the Appeal has already been dismissed on the ground that the office report reflects non-deposit of the 2nd instalment and a mismatch of the UTR Number of deposit of the 1st instalment.
It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 25.03.2026 the Learned In Charge Chairperson had specifically directed that in the event of failure to deposit any instalment, the Appeal shall stand dismissed.
In view of the fact that the Appeal has already been dismissed therefore the plea of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants is not maintainable in the eye of the law. Hence, disallowed.
psa-12
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an interim appeal filing can be contested when the court had already directed that failure to deposit instalments would result in automatic dismissal.
Whether a subsequent application for extension of time for deposit of the second instalment was maintainable after the appeal had already been dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Salman Kadir Chhaware & Anr.
Nirmal Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors.
The Authorised Officer
Vivek Bharti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
