Allowed

Piyush Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT9 Jul 2025MA/79/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an application for condonation of delay (35 days) to restore a previous miscellaneous application that had been dismissed in default. The court applied the principle that condonation must consider bonafides rather than merits, accepting the explanation of illness and court vacation.

What did the court decide?

M.A. No.79 of 2025 is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000 to Mumbai DRT Bar Association and registration of M.A. (D) No.1476 of 2023.

Piyush Shah versus Bank of Maharashtra — Property and Title | DRT (2025)

¶1

09.07.2025	Exh	*Roznama-MDRT-II* *M.A. No.79 of 2025*	Next date
		Mr Minesh K. Shah, Advocate for the Applicants. None for Respondents.
		The Applicants preferred this Misc. Application for Condonation of delay of 35 days in filing Misc. Application (D) No.1476 of 2023 for restoration of Misc. Application No.170 of 2017 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.05.2023. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submits that the Applicants filed M.A. No.170 of 2017 to set aside, quash and recall the mortgage declaration of judgment dated 30.07.2015 passed in O.A. No.285 of 2011. The Advocate completed all the pleadings in the M.A. and when the matter was ripe for arguments, the Advocate could not attend the matter because he was sick and bedridden since 17.05.2023 and on 23.05.2023, the Advocate went out of Mumbai and returned on 01.06.2023 and on 19.05.2023 could not attend the matter again because of the Hon’ble High Court Vacation and the Applicants were pre-occupied with other work and therefore, the M.A. was dismissed for non-appearance on 26.05.2023.
		To restore M.A. No.170 of 2017, the

¶2

Page 1 of 3

¶3

Applicants filed M.A. (D) No.1476 of 2023 but the Advocate could not file it on time due to the Hon’ble High Court opening after vacation and preoccupation in another contested matter. The Advocate came to know about the dismissal of the abovementioned M.A. No.170 of 2017 on 05.07.2023. Thereafter, the Advocate tried to e-lodge the matter but faced difficulties and the M.A. (D) No.1476 of 2023 came to be filed on 29.07.2023 instead on 25.06.2023. Hence filed the present M.A. and prays that the delay of 35 days may be condoned. Heard Ld. Advocate for the Applicant. Perused the Record. 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 bonafides 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. In the above facts and circumstances, M.A. No.79 of 2025 is allowed subject to cost

¶4

Page 2 of 3

¶5

	quantified in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable to Mumbai DRT Bar Association for purchase of books and periodicals.
	M.A. (D) No.1476 of 2023 be registered after due compliance.
nrb - 30	File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II	Closed

¶6

Page 3 of 3

Piyush Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Shah v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Case details

Similar cases

Salt Clothing and Co. versus the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Rashmin Rajnikant Shah

Dhanalakshmi Bank versus Vishal Ghanshyambahi Sarvaiya

State Bank of India versus M/s. Aarpee Distributors

Rahim Panjwani versus Hdfc Bank Limited

Rahim Panjwani versus Hdfc Bank Limited and Ors.