Dismissed

Abg Infralogistics Limited v. Axis Bank

DRT13 Jun 2025MA/56/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an Applicant's request to withdraw recovery proceedings and stay enforcement actions. The Tribunal held that the application filed in 2025 was barred by the law of limitation as it was filed after a significant lapse of time despite knowledge of relevant legal precedents.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for withdrawal of Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018 and stay of enforcement actions is rejected as barred by limitation.

Abg Infralogistics Limited versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

Order in Miscellaneous Application No.56 of 2025 In Original Application No.18 of 2016

¶3

M.A. Presented on: 07.03.2025 Registered on: 05.05.2025 Decided on: 13.06.2025

¶4

Starlog Enterprises Ltd. (Formerly known as ABG Infralogistics Ltd.)

... APPLICANT/s

V/s.

Axis Bank Ltd.

...RESPONDENT/s

Argued By –

Mr Charles De Souza, Mr Manaswi Agarwal and Ms Sulekha P. i/b M/s. Meraki Chambers, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Rohit Gupta (through VC) and Mr Harshvardhan Melanta i/b M/s. K. Ashar & Co., Advocates for Respondent.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

By way of this M.A. No.56 of 2025, the Applicant praying for withdrawal of Recovery Certificate dated 16.10.2018 issued in O.A. No.18 of 2016 and stay against the Respondent from pursuing his claim in Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018 until the conclusion of the Arbitration Proceeding and other reliefs which may be

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶15

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submits that the Applicant was not the actual borrower it furnished only a shortfall undertaking in favour of Axis Bank. The Axis Bank filed Original Application No.18 of 2016 on 29.07.2015 which was allowed by the Tribunal on 08.03.2016. Consequently, Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018 was instituted before the Tribunal. The present M.A. is filed for recalling the impugned order and withdrawal of Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018.

¶16

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant further submits that the Applicant being aggrieved by that Order filed Review Application (L) No.744 of 2018 and for condonation of delay of 32 days, M.A. No.09 of 2021 was also filed. That Review Application was declined by Registrar on 13.10.2023 as the Applicant failed to remove the objection. The Applicant filed the Chamber Appeal No.01 of 2025 challenging that impugned order of Ld. Registrar which is still pending for hearing and disposal, so, the present M.A. is within the limitation and the Applicant is not liable for entire amount but, only for shortfall. Hence, present M.A.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

No.56 of 2025 should be allowed and prayers mentioned above should be granted.

¶19

Ld. Advocate for Respondent vehemently opposed the arguments saying that the present M.A. is clearly barred by law of limitation as it is filed after the lapse of more than three year since initiation of Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018.

¶20

Heard both Ld. Advocates at length and perused the record.

¶21

It is evident from the record that Review Application filed in 2018 which was declined to register vide order dated 13.10.2023 by the Ld. Registrar due to failure to remove the objections against which a Chamber Appeal is still pending. However, the Applicant by way of present M.A. is seeking relief against the Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018 and the present M.A. is filed on 27.03.2025.

¶22

The Ld. Advocate for the Applicant argued that the present M.A. is filed in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vesus MSTC Limited (2020) 13 SCC 618 in which it was held that the condonation of delay cannot be granted for filing Review Application in SARFAESI Act, 2002. So, it is clear

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

that the principle laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court was within the knowledge of the Applicant since the date of judgment i.e., year 2020 but, such M.A. is filed in the year of 2025, so, it cannot be said that the present M.A. is filed within limitation as the Applicant is seeking relief against the Recovery Proceeding No.123 of 2018.

¶25

In the view of above discussion, the Tribunal is of considered opinion that present M.A. No.56 of 2025 is barred by law of limitation. Consequently, stands rejected.

¶26

Accordingly, M.A. No.56 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK)

¶28

Radhika -08

¶29

Page 4 of 5

¶30

13.06.2025	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.56 of 2025*	Next date
	Mr Charles De Souza, Mr Manaswi Agarwal and Ms Sulekha P. i/b M/s. Meraki Chambers, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Rohit Gupta (through VC) and Mr Harshvardhan Melanta i/b M/s. K. Ashar & Co., Advocates for Respondent.
	Order in M.A. No.56 of 2025 passed separately.
	File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
rst - 08	Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶31

Page 5 of 5

Abg Infralogistics Limited v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abg Infralogistics Limited v. Axis 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

Asrec (India) Limited versus M/s. Dhawal Textiles

Icici Bank Limited versus Abdul Aziz

Mr Hemendra P Bosmiya and Ors. versus India Resurgence Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Piyush Shah versus Bank of Maharashtra

Idfc First Bank Ltd. versus Amit Ramakrishna Koli

Canara Bank versus Ms Herbaceous Quo India LLP