Dismissed

Hotel Chail Valley v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

DRT19 Sept 2025RA/5/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review application under SA No.254/2024, the debtor sought extension of time to fulfill a compromise agreement. The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed the application because the original consent order stipulated auto-confirmation of auction upon default and the applicant admitted failing to deposit funds by the deadline.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed.

Hotel Chail Valley versus Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank — Insurance | DRT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I, CHANDIGARH

¶2

RA/5/2025 IN SA/254/2024 HOTEL CHAIL VALLEY Vs HIMACHAL PRADESH GRAMIN BANK 19.09.2025 Item No.124 Present: Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Counsel for the Applicant.

¶3

Ms. Ridhi Bansal, Counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Mahir Sood, Counsel for respondent No.3/Mr. Vivek Keshwarwani. None for respondent No.1&2/HPGB.

¶4

Heard on Review Application No.5 of 2025 for review of the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by this Tribunal.

¶5

Admittedly, applicant had raised some loan from HPGB. Since, the applicant did not make the repayment (HPGB) initiated the SARFAESI action and sold the secured asset vide auction notice dated 28.11.2024. One Mr. Vivek Keshwarwani, auction purchaser deposited the whole sale consideration within time.

¶6

Earlier to that applicant had filed SA No.254 of 2024 in this case. On 13.12.2024, the parties compromised the matter. As per the compromise, applicant undertook to pay Rs.50.00 Lacs within 10 days; another Rs.50.00 Lacs within 20 days and the remaining sum within 30 days. Admittedly, applicant did not make the payment as undertaken by him. On 12.01.2025, applicant filed the present review application for review and modification of the order. It is stated that on account of illness applicant could not make the payment and sought extension of time.

¶7

This deserves to be mentioned here that in the order dated 13.12.2024 it was clearly mentioned, with the consent of the parties, that in case the payment is not made by the 13.01.2025, the bank would confirm the auction. Today counsel for the applicant admits that applicant did not deposit any money by 13.01.2025. However, she states that earlier in this review application, the representative of the bank had appeared and made a statement that he has no objection in case the extension is granted. Counsel for the applicant further states that she has placed on the record demand draft in respect of the entire outstanding. I am of the considered view, that there is no merit in the review application as the order dated 13.12.2024 was passed with the consent of the parties and applicant had admitted that in case he fails to make the payment, the auction may be confirmed. Accordingly, application is hereby dismissed .

¶8

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

¶9

Pronounced in open Court 19.09.2025 PANKAJ

¶10

(A S Narang) Presiding Officer DRT-I, Chandigarh

Hotel Chail Valley v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Chail Valley v. Himachal Pradesh Gramin 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

Abbas Ca versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sachin Kumar Kaushal

Canara Bank versus M/S Avtar Bag Factory

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Hardik

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Partners and Legal Heir of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Ms Habib Agro Industries Rep by Its Industries Rep by Its Partner and Legal Heirs of Late Sri Habib Khan and Others versus the Authorised Officer Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.