Disposed

Ms Mecwel Constructions Private Limited v. Canara Bank

DRT26 May 2025SA/222/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal denied a prayer for total stay on auction proceedings but ordered a conditional stay. The auction will proceed, but confirmation is barred unless applicants deposit Rs. 5 crores in two instalments within a specific timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Sell schedule property at auction; stay confirmation of sale only if applicant deposits Rs. 5 crores in two instalments by June 23, 2025.

Ms Mecwel Constructions Private Limited versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF, MAY, 2025 PRESENT: SRI. GUMMADI GOPICHAND HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

IA. NO. 1338^()F 202s IN sA NO. 222 0F 2025

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. MECWEL Constructions Private Limited, Situated At. Plot No.510, Service Road, Sri Rama Nilayam, SN Bank Colony, Vijayawada-520008.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

Canara Bank, ARM Branch, Circle Office, Situated at D.No.54-16-48, Ground Floor, Lakshmi Avenue, Srinivasa Nagar Bank Colony, Ring Road, Vijayawada-520008.

¶8

.... Respondent/s

¶9

DOCKET ORDER DT. 26.05.2025.

¶10

IA.No.1338/2025 has been filed by the petitioner/Applicant seeking stay of all further proceedings in respect of schedule property pursuant to Auctlon sale fixed on 26.05.2025 vide sale notice dated 05.05.2025 by respondent bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶11

The petitioners filed the application under section 17 of the Act challenging the E- Auction sale notice dated 05.05.2025 issued by the respondent bank and auction gj-..Retition schedule properties fixed on 26.05.2025. It is submitted OV. thp counsglh+npe!.-cant that no notice under section 13(2) lti #!?;ilel;ffiffiHi;;i' ;: 1;ffil :ji'1"::: that respondent 6* failed &comp B(5), 8(6) and 8(7) which are mandatory, rienfelprayed foi!rant of

¶12

Heard the petitioner and perused the documents. No representation on behalf of respondent bank,

¶13

The issues raised by the^petitioners would be dealt in the course of main sA' However, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the sale proceedings initiated by the Respondent Bank against the petition schedule properties under the Auction sale Notice dt.05.05.2025 and auction fixed on 26.05.2025. However, the respondent bank is directed to go ahead urith auction but not to confirm the sale in favour of thJ highest bidder in the auctaon sale of the petition schedule propertiEs in pursuance of the Auction Sale notice dt.O5,O5.2025 and auctaon fixed on 26.05.2025 subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.S.OO crores in two instalments i.e., first instatment of Rs.2.5o crores to be deposited on or before 09.06.2025 and second instalment of Rs.2.5o crores to be deposited on or before 23.06.2025 to the credit of loan account with the Respondent Bank. In the event of failure of compliance of the above conditions by the petitioner, the interim stay shall stand vacated and the Respondent Bank shall be at liberty to confirm the sale and register the sale certificate in favour of the highest bidder in accordance with law and the said proceedings shall be subject to the result of SA.

¶14

Issue notice to respondent. For POS and compliance posted to 24.06.2025 before Reg istra r.

¶15

sd/-

¶16

Presiding Officer

¶17

i,'6--"'@
;.,iv d$
; z6ilAyzozs I
W'"4P

¶18

dw##

¶19

DRT.',^HYOER,4,6/]I

Ms Mecwel Constructions Private Limited v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mecwel Constructions Private Limited v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Sadiq Hussain and another versus State Bank of India

Syed Nasir Hussain And another versus State Bank of India

Vinayaka Raju versus State Bank of India

Canara Bank versus M/s. Sri Siddhi Garments

State Bank of India versus Sri. Nayab Hidayathulla

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Cherith Nehan