Partly allowed

Veerbhadra Trading Co. Prop Nikit Prakash Dalal v. Bank of India

DRT24 Jan 2025MA/200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal addressed two matters: an interim application regarding a possession notice under SARFAESI Act and a plea for condonation of delay in filing a Special Appeal. The tribunal rejected the possession application and condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

Application for protection against possession notice was rejected; delay of 311 days in filing Special Appeal was condoned in the interest of justice.

Date	Exh. No.	Roznama Order	Next date
24/01/2025		The Ld. counsel for both sides are present. The Ld. counsel for the respondent has filed reply to I.A.Nos.99 & 100 of 2025. The copy of the same has been served to the Ld. counsel for the applicant. I.A. NO.100/2025 Heard, both sides. The Ld. counsel for the applicant has sought protection against the possession notice issued by the Tahsildar and Taluka Dandadhikari, Nagpur City dated 02/01/2025 on the ground that the concerned officer is going to take possession of the secured assets on the basis of two different DM orders and the description of the property of the secured asset has also not been mentioned therein. It has been further submitted that the representation under section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act of the applicant has not been properly decided by the respondent bank and proper affidavit has also not been filed by the concerned Authorized Officer before the Ld. DM. prior to passing of the impugned orders. The same has been opposed by the Ld. counsel for the respondent, who has submitted that there are no different orders passed by the Ld. DM, Nagpur rather the initial order passed by the concerned Ld. DM in KV No.3/24 dated 04/01/2024 has been corrected in the subsequent order dated 02/09/2024.	Contd.

Date

Exh.
No.

Roznama Order

Next date

24/01/2025

The Ld. counsel for both sides are present.
The Ld. counsel for the respondent has filed
reply to I.A.Nos.99 & 100 of 2025. The copy of
the same has been served to the Ld. counsel for
the applicant.
I.A. NO.100/2025
Heard, both sides.
The Ld. counsel for the applicant has sought
protection against the possession notice issued
by the Tahsildar and Taluka Dandadhikari,
Nagpur City dated 02/01/2025 on the ground that
the concerned officer is going to take possession
of the secured assets on the basis of two different
DM orders and the description of the property of
the secured asset has also not been mentioned
therein. It has been further submitted that the
representation under section 13(3-A) of the
SARFAESI Act of the applicant has not been
properly decided by the respondent bank and
proper affidavit has also not been filed by the
concerned Authorized Officer before the Ld. DM.
prior to passing of the impugned orders.
The same has been opposed by the Ld.
counsel for the respondent, who has submitted
that there are no different orders passed by the
Ld. DM, Nagpur rather the initial order passed
by the concerned Ld. DM in KV No.3/24 dated
04/01/2024 has been corrected in the subsequent
order dated 02/09/2024.

Contd.

Contd. 24/01/2025	It has been further submitted that the Tahsildar is going to take possession of the secured assets as mentioned in the above mentioned orders. It has been further submitted that the grounds with regard to description of secured assets in the possession notice has not been pleaded in the present application.
	It has been further submitted that the representation of the applicant under section 13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act was filed by his counsel and there is no bar to file its reply by the counsel of the respondent-bank in the prevailing circumstances as per consistent judgments of the Hon’ble Courts. It has been further submitted that the applicant is not coming forward to repay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,09,00,350.44 even after passing of the impugned orders by the Ld.DM, for the reasons best known to him. As such, the same may not be allowed. Considering the submissions of both sides, material placed on record, it is ample clear that the order passed by the Ld. DM, Nagpur in Case No.96/2023/KV-03/2024 dated 04/01/2024 has been corrected vide order dated 02/09/2024. As such, the same should be treated in the continuity of earlier order and the Tahsildar is going to take possession of the secured assets as mentioned in the impugned orders. As such, I do not find any merit in the present application. The same is hereby rejected. M.A.NO.200/2024
	The Ld. counsel for the applicant has submitted that due to ignorance of fact, S.A. could not be filed within the stipulated period and he	Contd.

Contd.
24/01/2025

It has been further submitted that the Tahsildar
is going to take possession of the secured assets
as mentioned in the above mentioned orders. It
has been further submitted that the grounds with
regard to description of secured assets in the
possession notice has not been pleaded in the
present application.

It has been further submitted that the
representation of the applicant under section
13(3-A) of SARFAESI Act was filed by his
counsel and there is no bar to file its reply by the
counsel of the respondent-bank in the prevailing
circumstances as per consistent judgments of the
Hon’ble Courts.
It has been further submitted that the applicant
is not coming forward to repay the outstanding
amount of Rs.1,09,00,350.44 even after passing
of the impugned orders by the Ld.DM, for the
reasons best known to him. As such, the same
may not be allowed.
Considering the submissions of both sides,
material placed on record, it is ample clear that
the order passed by the Ld. DM, Nagpur in Case
No.96/2023/KV-03/2024 dated 04/01/2024 has
been corrected vide order dated 02/09/2024. As
such, the same should be treated in the continuity
of earlier order and the Tahsildar is going to take
possession of the secured assets as mentioned
in the impugned orders. As such, I do not find any
merit in the present application. The same is
hereby rejected.
M.A.NO.200/2024

The Ld. counsel for the applicant has
submitted that due to ignorance of fact, S.A. could
not be filed within the stipulated period and he

Contd.

Contd. 24/01/2025	could know about the action of the respondent only after issuance of the possession notice in this regard on 2^ndDecember 2024. As such, delay of 311 days in filing S.A. may be condoned. The same has been opposed by the Ld. counsel for the respondent, who has submitted that no cogent reason has been assigned for condoning the delay. As such, the same may not be allowed. Considering the submissions of both sides, material placed on record, the delay in filing the S.A. is hereby condoned in the interest of justice. Registry is directed to register S.A., if otherwise in order. Put up for filing reply to S.A. by respondent and hearing on I.A.No.99/2025 on --	27/01/2025
	Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur.

Contd.
24/01/2025

could know about the action of the respondent
only after issuance of the possession notice in
this regard on 2^ndDecember 2024. As such,
delay of 311 days in filing S.A. may be condoned.
The same has been opposed by the Ld.
counsel for the respondent, who has submitted
that no cogent reason has been assigned for
condoning the delay. As such, the same may not
be allowed.
Considering the submissions of both sides,
material placed on record, the delay in filing the
S.A. is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.
Registry is directed to register S.A., if
otherwise in order.
Put up for filing reply to S.A. by respondent and
hearing on I.A.No.99/2025 on --

27/01/2025

Presiding Officer,
DRT, Nagpur.

Veerbhadra Trading Co. Prop Nikit Prakash Dalal v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerbhadra Trading Co. Prop Nikit Prakash Dalal v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Kana

Dilip Shalikhram Deshmukh versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited Th Its Authorized Officer

Nusrat Fatema Jamshed Khan versus Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Dhanraj

Hdfc Bank versus Mahalaxmi Jari Traders

Bank of Baroda versus Maa Technologies