Partly allowed

Sun Industries v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

DRT19 Jul 2025SA/424/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In IA No. 1632/2025, the Tribunal stayed the sale of secured assets fixed for 19/07/2025 due to a significant difference between the government valuation and the bank's reserved price. The respondent bank was directed to submit a valuation report, defer the sale, and not issue a sale notice for three weeks. Other incidental orders followed.

What did the court decide?

The sale fixed for 19/07/2025 was deferred. The respondent bank was directed to submit a valuation report and not issue a sale notice for three weeks. Applicants were given liberty to bring purchasers

Sun Industries versus the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶3

ORDER SHEET

¶4

	19.07.2 Sr. No.	025 04 SA No. 424/2025
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		ORDER BELOW IA DIARY NO.1632/2025 IN SECURITIZATION APPLICATION NO. 424/2025. Sun Industires and others ..Applicants V/s The Chikhli Urban Co-op Bank Ltd, Chikhli and others … Respondents Mr. Gaikwad P.S. - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.J Suryawanshi. – Advocate for the respondents.
		1. The applicants have moved IA Diary No. 1632/2025 for
		setting aside sale fixed for today i.e. on 19/07/2025. The
		learned counsel for the applicants argued that the
		Government valuation of the secured asset has been submitted on record by the applicant whereas the respondent bank is selling the property at a very lowest price. It was
		submitted that the total valuation of the property is reflected
		from page No. 38 to 40 of the IA. The bank has fixed
		Reserved price Rs. l,65,89,000/- for four properties whereas
		Government valuation is more than 5 crores and the same is the position pertaining to other properties and prayed for
		staying the sale fixed for today.

¶5

[ambadas] (SA No.424/2025) Page 1 of 1

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶7

2. On the other side, it was submitted on behalf of respondent
bank that only one bid received pertaining to property No.1
to 4 for reserved prize Rs.1,65,89,000/- and no bid has been
received pertaining to other properties. It was submitted that reserved price has been fixed after valuation and prayed for dismissal of the IA of the applicants.
3. After hearing both the sides, I pass the following order. ORDER A. The respondent bank is directed to defer the sale fixed for
today i.e. on 19/07/2025 as there is big difference
between Government valuation report submitted by the
applicants as well as in reserved price fixed by the bank.
B. The respondent bank is directed to submit the valuation report of the secured asset on the next date of hearing.
C. The applicants / borrowers are also given liberty to bring
purchasers for the secured assets giving higher value to
the properties.
D. The respondent bank is also directed not to issue any sale
notice within three weeks from the date of this order in

¶8

[ambadas] (SA No.424/2025) Page 2 of 1

¶9

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶10

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶11

ORDER SHEET

¶12

order to give full opportunity to the applicants to bring their purchasers to realise the maximum amount out of sale of the secured assets. E. IA No. 1632/2025 is disposed off. F. IA No.1633/2025 for amendment in SA is allowed. G. List this matter for amended SA and reply of respondents on 19/08/2025.

¶13

(Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶14

[ambadas] (SA No.424/2025) Page 3 of 1

Sun Industries v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sun Industries v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

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

Madhuri Prakash Vasave versus Union Bank of India

Santosh Mohanlal Mardane versus Motilal Oswal Home Finance Company

Bank of Baroda versus Dinesh Nimba Salunke

Bhushan Agro Eco Facility versus the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Jayesh Umakant Nehete versus the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Nitin Dayaram Sonawane