Allowed

Ms D Corp Agro Foods Private Limited and Others v. Bank of Baroda

DRT20 Feb 2025MA/23/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed a miscellaneous application to condone a 39-day delay in filing a chamber appeal, subject to costs, after noting the bona fides of the explanation near the time of filing.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the miscellaneous application to condone delay of 39 days, setting aside the registrar's rejection and restoring the chamber appeal to file upon compliance and payment of costs.

Ms D Corp Agro Foods Private Limited and Others versus Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, Presiding Officer DRT-II, Mumbai

¶2

Order In Miscellaneous Application No.23 of 2025 In Chamber Appeal (D) No.165 of 2025 In Securitisation Application (D) No.2468 of 2023

¶3

Instituted on : 01.02.2025 Registered on : 14.02.2025 Decided on : 20.02.2025

¶4

M/s. D Corp Agro Foods Private Limited and others

... APPLICANTSs

V/s.

Bank of Baroda

...RESPONDENT

Argued By –

Mr Ajit Kocharekar, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶11

None for the Respondent.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The Applicants have preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay in filing on behalf of the Applicants in Chamber Appeal.

¶14

In the present matter, the Applicants state that in the year 2017, the Applicants applied for various loan and credit facilities viz Cash Credit, Term Loan (Purchase of Machinery and

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

Equipments), Demand Loan (BCECL) FITL Loan II, WCTL and CLCSS facilities to the Defendant Bank.

¶17

The Defendant Bank sanctioned vide sanction letter No. SME/ MMCR/2017-15/530-A dated 30-11-2017, the said loans and credit facilities to the tune of ₹ 10,45,00,000/-. Thereafter by letter dated 26/03/2021 on the request of the Applicants, the said credit facilities were reviewed by the Defendant Bank to ₹ 10,12,98,000/- against the security interest over their not mentioned above. The Applicants had executed all the necessary documents.

¶18

The Applicants state that the registered Mortgage Deed for the said flats was executed by the Applicants in favour of the Defendant Bank on 04.01.2018, when there was no restraining order against the borrower. The borrowers defaulted and the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset on 28.02.2022.

¶19

The Demand Notice dated 11.03.2022 under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the borrowers calling upon them to repay the said outstanding amount within 60 days from the date of service of notice, failing which the possession of the Factory Land along with the factory building, plant and machinery and electrical equipment situated at Gut No. 376 & 3, Village Palsai, Taluka Wada, District Palghar(MH)-421312

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

valued at ₹ 9,12,73,330/- as on 31/03/2022 as per the Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account of the Applicants No.1 Company against the said due loan and credit facilities of ₹ 9,54,37,829.39

¶22

The Applicants had given their reply dated 05.05.2022 to the said notice dated 11.03.2022 issued by the Defendant Bank thereby brought to the notice of the Defendant Bank the order of Injunction dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court restraining the Applicants No.2 parting with possession of the said two Flats viz. Flat No. F-3 and F-4.

¶23

The Applicants did not comply with the requisitions made in the said notice within stipulated period of 60 days and hence, the Defendant bank took over the physical possession scheduled on 20.02.2025 of the Factory Land along with the factory building, plant and machinery and electrical equipment situated at Gut No. 376 & 3, Village Palsai, Taluka Wada, District Palghar (MH) -421312 against the said due loan on 30.11.2017.

¶24

The Office of the Tribunal has raised office objections in the Securitization Application. Accordingly, The Applicants have removed /cleared and complied with all other office objections save and except regarding the signatures of the Applicants

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

required on certain pages. The above Securitization Application was on board on 04.12.2024 before the Learned Registrar and the Learned Registrar was pleased to reject the said Securitization Application for non-removal of the said office objections. The Applicants claim that they came to know that the above Securitization Application is rejected by the Learned Registrar on 24.01.2025.

¶27

The Applicants have taken steps for filing the above Chamber Appeal for Restoration and Misc. Application for Condonation of delay. Hence, the Applicants have filed the present Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay of 39 days.

¶28

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs dated 02.04.2024 observed that while considering an application to condone delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. It owes a duty first to ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. Hence, this Tribunal will not decide on the merits of the matter but will rather consider the bonafide shown in the explanation.

¶29

Today, Counsel for Applicant seeks time to furnish the medical certificate. But since the matter was already posted for orders, time cannot be given.

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

In the wake of foregoing discussion, Misc. Application is allowed subject to cost quantified in the sum of Rs.5000/payable to DRT Bar Association for purchase of books and periodicals.

¶32

Sd/- (HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, MUMBAI Akhila/Radhika – 19

¶33

Page 5 of 6

¶34

20.02.2025	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.23 of 2025*	Next date
	Mr Ajit A. Kocharekar, Advocate for the Applicant. None for Respondent.
	Order in M.A. No.23 of 2025 passed separately.
	Chamber Appeal be restored to file after due compliance. Sd/- P.O.	Closed
nrb - 19	DRT-II

¶35

Page 6 of 6

Ms D Corp Agro Foods Private Limited and Others v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms D Corp Agro Foods Private Limited and Others v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Kruti Infracons Pvt. Ltd.

Axis Bank versus Pooja Diam LLP

Corporation Bank versus M/S Adep and Sons Textiles

Mr Maharshi Trilok Joshi versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited Formerly Known as Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited

Gyanti Lavkush Chauhan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Sirajuddin Hafizullah Khan versus Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited