Dismissed

Moongipa Realty Private Limited v. Indian Bank

DRT21 Apr 2025MA/38/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application to restore previous dismissed orders and reinstate a status-quo regarding property possession. The court held that the applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for delays and frequent defaults, noting unreliable reasons and administrative discrepancies.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous Application No.38 of 2025 was dismissed with no costs.

Moongipa Realty Private Limited versus Indian Bank — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A. No.38 of 2025

¶3

In Securitisation Application No.39 of 2017

¶4

M.A. Instituted on : 02.04.2025 Decided on : 21.04.2025

¶5

Moongipa Realty Private Limited V/s.

¶6

... APPLICANT/s

¶7

Indian Bank & Ors. ...RESPONDENT/s

¶8

Argued By –

¶9

Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr V.N. Ajikumar i/b M/s. VNA Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing M.A. No.38 of 2025 filed under Section 19(25) of RDDBI Act, 2002.

¶12

By way of M.A. No.38 of 2025, the Applicant is challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 and prays to set aside the order dated 11.02.2025 and to restore the Miscellaneous Application No.45 of 2023 and reinstate the status-quo order dated 03.02.2017 and the direction to Respondent No.1 for not taking possession of the subject property namely, Unit Nos.1, 2 & 3, total carpet area of 4,800 square feet, 1^st floor, building named as “Aawez Co-

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

operative Housing Society”, Amboli Naka, near Corporation Bank, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400 058.

¶15

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that Applicant is a third party neither a borrower nor a guarantor of the alleged credit facility guaranteed and sanctioned by Respondent No.1 to Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Applicant purchased the subject property vide a registered agreement of sale dated 19.10.2006. Respondent No.1 tried to take physical possession of the property by virtue of order u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act dated 23.09.2015 and the possession was scheduled to be taken on 07.12.2016 by the Court Commissioner.

¶16

The Applicant filed S.A. No.39 of 2017 on 27.12.2016 in which the order of status-quo was granted by the Tribunal on 03.02.2017. That S.A. was dismissed in default on 08.04.2022. The Applicant filed M.A. No.45 of 2023 on 03.01.2023 for restoration of the above mentioned S.A. No.39 of 2017 but that M.A. itself got dismissed in default on 11.02.2025. The present M.A. No.38 of 2025 is filed to restore the above mentioned M.A. No.45 of 2023 and subsequently for the restoration of S.A. and to reinstate the status-quo order dated 03.02.2017.

¶17

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant also argued that the above S.A. was dismissed as one of the directors was not getting well at that time and Advocate was also busy for her treatment. So, in these

¶18

Page 2 of 6

¶19

circumstances, the Applicant could not monitor the matter personally as he was totally dependent on the Advocate.

¶20

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent strongly opposed the present M.A. No.38 of 2025 by way of reply.

¶21

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the present M.A. is barred by limitation and the Applicant failed to prove that there was sufficient cause for not pursuing the matters. He also submitted that both the earlier matters were dismissed in default which indicates that the Applicant simply wants to keep the matter pending for many unknown reasons. So, the M.A. should be rejected.

¶22

Heard both Ld. Advocates at length. Perused the Record.

¶23

The above mentioned S.A. was dismissed in default on 08.04.2024. Ld. Advocate for the Respondent filed the copies of earlier order-sheets dated 01.01.2021, 12.11.2021 and 08.04.2022 which shows that none was present for the Applicant but the Respondent was represented by his Ld. Advocate.

¶24

The above mentioned earlier M.A. No.45 of 2023 was dismissed on 11.02.2025. The relevant order-sheets discloses that the Applicant was absent since 03.11.2023.

¶25

In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the above S.A. and M.A. was dismissed on a single day absence.

¶26

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dwarika Prasad (Deceased)

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

through LRs Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh, this Tribunal gets guidance from the above judgment but due to difference of facts that is not applicable in the present matter because there, the Appellant was an uneducated person who used to put his thumb on the documents but in the present case, the Applicant is a company having much educated directors.

¶29

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sesh Nath Singh and Ors. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. This Tribunal also gets guidance from this judgment but this is not applicable in the particular facts in the present matter.

¶30

It is pertinent to note that the Applicant pleaded in paragraph 21 of the Writ Petition No.1265 of 2025 before the Hon’ble High Court that the dismissal order of M.A. No.45 of 2023 dated 11.02.2025 was not uploaded in the D.R.T. Website. However, the Respondent submitted certificate of the Registrar, DRT-2, Mumbai dated 16.04.2025, according to which that order of M.A. No.45 of 2023 dated 11.02.2025 was uploaded on the D.R.T. Website on 12.02.2025. This shows that the Applicant has not come with clean hands before the Tribunal to get relief and the reasons shown by the Applicant for not monitoring the earlier applications neither reliable nor believable.

¶31

In the considered opinion of this Tribunal, the Applicant has not shown sufficient reason for not filing this M.A. within limitation

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

and regarding his non-appearance either personally or through Advocate on the relevant dates. It is also important that the original Applicant’s name was changed by way of order of the Registrar of Companies dated 12.12.2013 but even after change of name, the Applicant filed that S.A. in the first name in the year 2016. Prima facie it appears that the Applicant simply wants to keep this matter pending for years.

¶34

Therefore, the Applicant has not proved his case. Accordingly, M.A. No.38 of 2025 is dismissed with no costs.

¶35

Sd/- (HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, MUMBAI

¶36

Nidhi - 17

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

21.04.2025	Exh.	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.38 of 2025*	Next date
		Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr V.N. Ajikumar, Advocate for Respondent.
		Matter is fixed for order in M.A. No.38 of 2025.
	6 7	Vakalatnama (exhibit-6) and reply affidavit (exhibit-7) filed by Advocate for the Respondent Bank on 16.04.2025. Taken on record.
		Order in M.A. No.38 of 2025 passed separately.
nrb - 17		File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶39

Page 6 of 6

Moongipa Realty Private Limited v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moongipa Realty Private Limited v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus M/S General Chemical Industries

M S Assure Education Consultancy versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited

M/s. Star Hotels versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited

Allahabad Bank versus Rubber Craft

The Zoroastrian Cooperative Bank Limited versus Milestone Group Interior Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Asrec (India) Limited versus Jai Bhawani Bar and Restaurant