Allowed

Sanjay So Bhaurao Deshmukh v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT10 Jun 2025MA/49/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal reviewed an order that inadvertently disposed of an application for condonation of delay by confining it to a different diary entry. The court held that this caused prejudice as the main special article could not proceed, allowing the review application and restoring the original condonation motion.

What did the court decide?

The review application is allowed; the application for condonation of delay (M.A. No. 09/2025) is restored; the order dated 03.02.2025 is modified.

Sanjay So Bhaurao Deshmukh versus Indian Overseas Bank — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

Sr. /Vo. 3

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

BEFORE HON'BLE INCHARGE P,O., CAMP AT DRT AUR'BAD DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

¶4

(2nd Floor, "8" Block, CGO Complex, Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440 006) (Jurisdiction: 11 Districts of Vidarbha, Maharashtra)

¶5

M.A. No. 4912025

¶6

¶7

Shi Sanjay B. Deshmukh & Ors,

Vs"

lndian Overseas Bank

Date: 10.06.2025

Present Adv R.K. Thakkar, Counsel for applicants. Adv Karan Sachdev, Counsel for respondent

¶12

HEARING THROUGH V,C.

¶13

This application for reviewing the order dated 03.02.2025 moved^by applicant on the ground that inadvertently M.A. No, 0912025^for condonation of delay in filing of S.A. was disposed of alongwith^{LA. Diary} N0.62/2025. Due to this order the original S.A.^pending wlth the^regrstry cannot^proceed further and^prayed for restoration of^{M.A. No,0912025by} way of review of order dated 03.02.2025.

¶14

The applicant has also filed MA N0.49/2025 for condonation^{of 45 days} rielay in filing of Review Application^{(RA (Diary)} N0.354/2025).

¶15

On the other side, it was submitted by Learned Counsel^{for bankthat} M.A. N0.09/2025 was disposed of and now this^{applicationfor} review is not maintainable as the applicant has to challenge^{this order by} filing the appeal and prayed for dismissal of Review Application^RA(Diary) N0.354/2025 as well MA N0.49/2025.

¶16

O BS ERV ATIONS

¶17

On perusal of order dated 03.02.2025^passed by this^{Tribunal as in-} charge of DRT Nagpur, the l.A, Diary No.62/2025^{moved in M.A. No.} 0912025 was rejected and lvl.A. No. 09/2025^{was also disposedof} alongwith lnterlocutory Application Diary No. 6212025.^{Now,it has} been claimed by applicant that M,A. No. 09/2025^{was pertainingto} condonation of delay in filing the S.A. and unless^{and until this lil.A} is restored, the condonation delay application cannot^{be decidedby} DRT and even the main S,A,^pending with^{registrar office for further} proceedings cannot be taken into consideration.

¶18

. As this Tribunal disposed of M,A, No. 0912025 on the^ground that interlocutory application for interim relief^{movedunderthis} application was not maintainable and^{more-so on merits, saleof} secured asset has already been effected and^{hencethe interim relief} application l.A. Diary N0.62/2025^{was rejectedandaccordinglyM.A.} No. 09/2025 was also disposed of^{without goingintomerits of the} case, which has caused^prejudice to the^{applicant.Hence, it is} necessary to restore this application N4,A. No. 0912025^andthis review application to this effect is maintainable,

¶19

ln view of the above, I^pass the following order:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1. The lt/,A. N0.59/2025 is allowed and delay in filing the^{reviewapplication} is hereby condoned.

¶22

1. The M.A. No. 09/2025 moved by applicant for condonation^{of delay in filing} the S.A. is hereby restored and order dated 03.02.2025 stands^modified according ly.

¶23

1. Adjourned for hearing on M.A. No.9/2025 fot 22.06.2025.

¶24

l/c. Presiding Officer DRT, Nagpur, Camp at DRT, Aur'bad

Sanjay So Bhaurao Deshmukh v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay So Bhaurao Deshmukh v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Singh Sapra versus Decent Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Fashion Adda Prop Smt Babita Ojha Saha versus Punjab National Bank (United Bank of India)

Ms Brijwasi Cycle Store versus Union Bank of India

Hdfc Bank versus Mr. Subhash Chand

Central Bank of India versus M/S J.N Rice Mills

Icici Bank Limited versus Anoop Singh Kadwasra