Ms Naman Developers versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

ORDER SHEET

	03.07. Sr. No	2025 .02 MA No.21/2025
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 21/2025. M/s. Naman Developers and Others ..Applicants V/s The Malkapur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malkapur and Others. ..Respondents
		Mr. S.R. Deshpande - Advocate for the applicants Mr. K.B. Deshpande - Advocate for Respondents.
		1. The present Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2025 has filed by
		the applicants for restoration of Securitization Application No. 91/2019.
		2. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the
		Securitization Application No. 91/2019 was disposed of by this
		Tribunal on 30/12/2023 with the liberty to the applicants to
		revive this Securitization Application as and when liquidator
		takes charge and bank supposed to take action against applicants.
		The bank was also directed to issue 15 days’ notice to the
		applicants in case of taking any action against them. It was
		further submitted that now the liquidator has been appointed and
		the respondent bank has issued possession notice dated
		19/05/2025 for taking physical possession of the properties on
		03/07/2025 i.e. today itself. Therefore, in these circumstances

¶4

[Ambadas] (MA No.21/2025) Page 1 of 1

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶6

ORDER SHEET

¶7

prayed for restoration of SA No. 91/2019. It was further argued
that the applicants have filed Interlocutory Application No.
929/2025 for interim relief against possession notice as they
could not pay loan amount as one of the partner died on
23/09/2022 and for substitution of the partner the applicants
moved to the Bank for seeking permission to add party in place
of the deceased partner, and in that process the loan amount
could not be paid. It is also submitted that the applicants are
ready to settle the account under OTS and they have already paid
80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs) on 31/03/2017, and prayed
for interim relief.
3. On the other side, it was submitted on behalf of respondents that
demand notice was issued to the applicants on 9/12/2016 for Rs.
4.17 crores and order under Section 14 was passed on 24/7/2019.
The applicants had paid Rs. 80,00,000/-, (Rupees Eighty Lakhs
only ) and the property of the firm was mortgaged with the Bank
and death of the one partner has no adverse effect for
proceedings further against the assets of the firm, and now the
total outstanding amount against the applicants is near-about 15 crores, and they are not entitled for interim relief.
4. Keeping in view the submissions of both the sides, I pass the following order:

¶8

[Ambadas] (MA No.21/2025) Page 2 of 1

¶9

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶10

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶11

ORDER SHEET

¶12

ORDER
A. The MA No. 21/2025 is hereby allowed and SA No. 91/2019
be restored accordingly.
B. The respondent Bank is directed to defer the possession of
Secured assets fixed on 03/07/2025, in case applicants
deposite Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rs. Thirty Lakhs only) today itself
before 4.00 p.m. The applicants are further directed to pay
Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy Lakhs only) by 31/07/2025. In
default of deposit of either of the amount, the respondent
Bank is entitled to take possession of the suit property.
C. The applicant shall move OTS proposal to the Bank within
fifteen days, and respondent shall decide the same within 20
days as per its policy. In default of deposit of above said
amount and failure of OTS, Bank is at liberty to proceed
further against the applicants / borrowers as per Law.
D. The Interlocutory Application No. 929/2025 is disposed of
accordingly.
E. Issue notice to respondent No. 4 returnable on18/08/2025.
F. There is no need of issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 2

¶13

[Ambadas] (MA No.21/2025) Page 3 of 1

¶14

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶15

ORDER SHEET

¶16

and 3 being District Magistrate and Additional Tahasildar as they are not necessary parties to adjudicate the controversy between the parties.

¶17

G. Registry is hereby directed to restore SA No. 91/2019 at its original stage.

¶18

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶19

[Ambadas] (MA No.21/2025) Page 4 of 1

Ms Naman Developers v. The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Naman Developers v. The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus Sanjay Uttamrao Patil

Bank of Baroda versus Sharad Sakharam Pawar

State Bank of India versus M/S Salasar Alloys Industries

Ajay Sadashiv Patil versus Deogiri Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Aurangabad

Om Hare Ram Hare Krishna versus State Bank of India

Shilkesha Bhagwat Naikwadi versus Di.Vaidyanath Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd.