Dismissed

Shivlandmark Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. the Sangli District Central Co. Op Bank Ltd. Sangli

DRT25 Jun 2025MA/37/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed an application by a private limited company seeking to enforce a Tri-Partite Agreement and handover of property. The court rejected the plea citing the applicant's failure to make the mandated Rs. 101 Crores payment even after an extended six-week period granted earlier.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivlandmark Properties Pvt. Ltd. versus the Sangli District… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 18.10.2024 Registered on: 14.11.2024 Decided on: 25.06.2025 Duration: Y M D 0 8 7

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.37/2024

¶3

Shiv Landmark Properties Private Limited

¶4

A Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 1578, Post Yashwant Nagar, Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kauthe Mahankal, District Sangli – 416 405. Through its Authorized Director Mr. Pravin Dnyaneshwar Mali.

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Sangli District Central Coop. Bank Ltd., Sangli Having their Head Office at Padmabhushan Vasantdada Patil Marg, Karmaveer Bhaurao Patil Chowk, Sangli 416 416.

¶8

Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Kavathe Mahankal A Multistate Co-operative Society having its office at

¶9

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 1 of 8

¶10

Rajarambapu Nagar, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli 416 405.

¶11

The Authorised Officer and Chief Manager, Bank of India

¶12

Branch Kavathe Mahankal, Taluka Kavathe Mahankal, District Sangli – 416 405.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

APPEARANCES

¶15

For the Applicant	Mr. Abhishek Patil - Advocate
For Respondent No.1	Mr. Prashant M. Maindargi - Advocate

¶16

JUDGEMENT

¶17

(Delivered on 25^th June, 2025)

¶18

By this application the applicant has claimed following reliefs:

¶19

(1) That the Defendant No.1-Bank may kindly be directed to extend the period of repayment of settlement of dues of the Defendant No.2 as has been mentioned in the grounds and facts of the present application;

¶20

(2) And that the Defendant No.1-Bank may kindly be directed by an Order of mandatory injunction to handover peaceful possession of the suit property to the Applicant;

¶21

(3) And that the Tri-Partite Agreement as well as the

¶22

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 2 of 8

¶23

Agreement of Foreclosure of Mortgage may kindly be held as valid and in force and that the Defendant No.1Bank may kindly be restrained from declaring the said agreements as cancelled, null and void;

¶24

(4) And that the Applicant may kindly be permitted to pay an amount of Rs.10 Crores, today itself against the pending dues and that this Hon’ble Court may kindly allow the Applicant to prepare prospective payment schedule in accordance and in consonance with the parties to the present lis;

¶25

(5) And that the record and proceedings of S.A. No.139/2020 may kindly be called for, for the hearing of this misc. application;

¶26

(6) And for any other just or fair reasonable orders as deemed fit, proper, necessary and expedient to meet the ends of justice.

¶27

The respondent No.1-Bank by filing Reply (Exhibit-7) resisted the application.

¶28

Heard both the parties.

¶29

The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that as per Tri-Partite Agreement executed between present

¶30

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 3 of 8

¶31

applicant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 in pursuance of order passed below IA No.533/2022 in SA No.139/2020, the respondent bank had agreed to release 80 Acres of suit property to present applicant for Plotting and Selling the same and the present applicant was to repay the outstanding loan amount to it on behalf of respondent No.2-Shri Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited. However, there are encumbrances on this piece of 80 Acres of land and therefore, it is difficult to give effect to terms and conditions of Tri-Partite Agreement.

¶32

He further submitted that some amount has been paid as per Tri-Partite Agreement to respondent No.1-Bank. Further, earlier to present application period for repayment was got extended by Order of this Court. However, due to above mentioned circumstances the present applicant could not repay the loan during extended period and as per schedule mentioned in the TriPartite Agreement. The respondent No.1-Bank by taking disadvantage of non-payment of loan amount is going to cancel the Tri-Partite Agreement. Therefore, present application is filed claiming reliefs mentioned therein.

¶33

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 4 of 8

¶34

He further submitted that the present application is maintainable after disposal of the Securitisation Application. On the contrary, the respondent No.1-Bank cannot challenge the maintainability of present application under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, reliefs as claimed may be granted.

¶35

In support of his contentions, he placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Canara Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch Vs. M/s. Coromandel Indag Products & Others. [W.P. No.22170 of 2007 and M.P. No.1 of 2007decided on 5^th October, 2007].

¶36

Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 bank submitted that the present application is not maintainable as Securitisation Application has been disposed of. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 39665/2024 in M.A.D. No.14381/2024 in M.A. No.714 of 2022 in W.P. (C) No.429 of 2020 decided on 9^th December,

¶37

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 5 of 8

¶38

2024].

¶39

He further submitted that as per Tri-Partite Agreement the present applicant was to pay Rs.101 Crores to respondent No.1 bank. It made part payment and thereafter, committed default. Though period of payment was extended by this Court as per application filed by applicant, it failed to make the payment during that extended period.

¶40

Further, there is Termination Clause in case of default committed by the applicant in payment of amount mentioned in the Tri-Partite Agreement. Therefore, since present applicant failed to make payment as per Schedule mentioned in the Tri-Partite Agreement, the respondent bank has right to cancel the same. In the circumstances, present applicant is not entitled for reliefs as claimed. Therefore, application may be rejected.

¶41

Perused the documents. Admittedly, Tri-Partite Agreement between present applicant and respondent Nos.1 and 2 was executed as per Order passed below IA No.533/2022 in SA No.139/2020. The present applicant was under obligation to make payment of Rs.101 Crores to

¶42

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 6 of 8

¶43

the respondent bank as per Schedule mentioned therein. However, after making part payment, it failed to make payment as per Schedule.

¶44

After disposal of Securitisation Application, the present applicant moved MA No.56/2023 and got extended period for depositing the amount as mentioned in the Schedule of the Tri-Partite Agreement. By Order dated 9^th December, 2023 this Court had extended the period of payment by six weeks. The present applicant failed to make payment during the said extended period.

¶45

The reasons for inability to make payment mentioned in the present application are not conceivable. The applicant has not taken benefit of extended period given vide Order passed in MA No.56/2023 for making payment.

¶46

In view of these observations, now present applicant is not entitled for reliefs as claimed. Hence, application is liable for dismissal.

¶47

Hence, I pass the following order:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

A. Miscellaneous Application No.37/2024 is hereby dismissed.

¶50

B. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, also

¶51

[Kaur] (MA No.37/2024) Page 7 of 8