Dismissed

Suntop Hotels Private Limited v. Dwarkadas Manrti Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRT8 Dec 2025SA/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a Securitisation Application under the SARFAESI Act filed against a bank's recovery proceedings. The court held the application was not maintainable due to lack of Board resolution authorizing the new director applicant and dismissed it due to failure to condone a two-year delay.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.57/2023 dismissed with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Suntop Hotels Private Limited versus Dwarkadas Manrti Nagari… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

Presented on: 24.02.2023 Registered on: 28.02.2023 Decided on: 08.12.2025 Duration: Y M D 02 09 12

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT AURANGABAD (Before Dr. J.R. Chauhan Presiding Officer) SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.57/2023

¶3

Suntop Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Aurangpura, Aurangabad. Through its Director Shri. Piyush Devichand Baheti.

¶4

Shri. Vijaykumar Devichand Baheti Age : 61 years; Occupation : Business Kelibazar, Aurangabad … Applicants

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Authorized Officer, Dwarkadas Mantri Sahakari Bank Ltd. Head Office : Jalna Road, Aurangabad431001.

¶7

Dwarkadas Mantri Sahakari Bank Ltd. Branch - Jalna Road, Aurangabad. - 431001

¶8

Shri Dinesh S/o Shankarlalji Darak, Age : 58 years; Occupation: Business, R/At: House No. 25, Chavni, Aurangabad – 431001.

¶9

Smt. Kiran w/o Vijaykumar Baheit, Age : 56 years; Occupation: Housewife, R/At: Kelibazar,

¶10

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 1 of 19

¶11

Aurangabad-431001.

¶12

Shri Ganesh S/o Shankarlalji Darak, Age : 64 years, Occupation : Business, R/At: House No. 25, Chhavni, Aurangabad-431001. … Respondents

¶13

APPEARANCES

¶14

For the Applicants Mr. Amit A. Yadkikar - Advocate For Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. S.R. Deshpande – Advocate For Respondent No.3 to 5 None

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

(Delivered on 08^th December, 2025)

¶17

This Securitization Application No.57/2023 under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Hereinafter referred as SARFAESI Act) has filed by the applicants against the respondents with averments that the Applicant No.2 and the Respondent No.5 were Directors of the applicant No.1 namely Suntop Hotels Pvt. Ltd which is engaged in the business of Hotels and Restaurants since past several years who availed a loan for construction worth Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only) from the respondent No.2 on 29.10.2009. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the guarantors for the loan availed by the applicants.

¶18

It is further submitted that the applicant No.1 and 2 who

¶19

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 2 of 19

¶20

were running their business smoothly till almost the end of 2016, however, thereafter due to market recession as well as demonetization, the service industry took a very bad hit which lead to downfall in general worsening in the market, as a result, the applicants were not in a position to generate revenue as projected and suffered losses and failed to repay and account of the applicants become irregular and account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). Thereafter the respondent No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred as the bank) initiated recovery proceedings against the applicants and issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.31,63,042/(Rupees Thirty-One Lacs, Sixty-Three Thousand and Forty-Two only).

¶21

It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 is Authorised Officer of the respondent No.2 who is a Cooperative bank and respondent No.2 initiated proceedings against the applicant under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for seeking a recovery certificate. The applicants made an application to respondent No.2 on 27.03.2019 to repay the outstanding loan amount and the applicants also informed regarding issuance of Demand

¶22

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 3 of 19

¶23

Draft No.59141 for Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs only) drawn on Ajanta Urban Co-operative Bank with the prayer for relaxing interest and delayed interest fees for settling loan account. Unfortunately, the respondent bank did not reply the letter of the applicants. The applicants again approached the bank for One Time Settlement on 02.11.2019 but to no effect. The applicants further made another attempt vide application dated 09.12.2021 for OTS with an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs only) as OTS alongwith being open to further paying additional amount towards the OTS. The respondent No.2 instructed the applicants to remit a sum of Rs.1,12,500/- (Rupees One Lac, Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred only) and this amount was remitted on 22.02.2002 vide a Demand Draft and applicants further pay Rs.16,000/(Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) as per directions of the bank on 05.05.2022 vide cheque dated 05.05.2022 drawn on Ajanta Urban Cooperative Bank. The respondent No.2 orally and telephonically informed for approval of the amount of Rs.14,71,864/(Rupees Fourteen Lacs, Seventy-One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-Four only) as final figure for One Time Settlement and accordingly the

¶24

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 4 of 19

¶25

applicants drew a cheque No.640711 drawn on Ajanta Urban Co-operative Bank Aurangabad and also sent communication dated 31.05.2022 but the applicant did not get any response from the bank with regards to confirmation of OTS.

¶26

The respondent No.2 bank filed SARFAESI Petition No.155/2020 before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad and obtained order dated 08.10.2021 and possession notice was issued on 23.11.2022 by Upper Tahsildar, Aurangabad wherein date for taking possession was fixed on 02.03.2023 and applicant were served but only on Whatsapp. The applicants have challenged the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent bank on the grounds that the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 bank are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The respondent bank has failed to comply with the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 as failed to serve notice to the applicants. The respondent bank did not consider the OTS proposal of the applicants and obtained order dated 08.10.2021 by misleading the District Magistrate. The respondent bank has charged excessive and exorbitant rate of interest. The demand notice has not been issued in

¶27

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 5 of 19

¶28

consonance with the requirement of Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The demand notice, possession notice and action of the respondent bank are bad in law and unsustainable. The respondent bank has failed to comply the provisions of SARFAESI Act as well as Rule No.8 made thereunder. The respondent bank cannot take further coercive action against the applicants and prayed for declaring the demand notice dated 13.03.2019 and order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad as illegal and the same may be quashed and the Securitisation Application may be allowed as prayed for.

¶29

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Bank) filed their written statement at Exhibit-10 alleging therein that the demand notice dated 13.03.2019 issued by the respondent to M/s. Suntop Hotels Private Ltd. through tis Director Mr. Ganesh Dark and Vikaykumar Baheti whereas Securitisation Application has filed by Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti as Director of applicant No.1. Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti has no concern with the loan transaction as he was neither Director nor Guarantor for the loan availed from the bank as per documents submitted to the bank. This Securitisation

¶30

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 6 of 19

¶31

Application filed by Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti as Director is not maintainable and the same is liable to be rejected. The applicants have not filed any resolution of Board of Directors regarding filing of the Securitisation Application. The applicants have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act whereas this Securitisation Application was filed on 23.02.2023 and Securitisation Application was not filed within 45 days from the date of order dated 08.10.2021 nor any separate Interlocutory Application is filed for condonation of delay and on this ground of delay and latches, the present Securitisation Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

It is further alleged that the bank has obtained order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 08.10.2021 in the Securitisation Application No.155/2020 from the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. It was admitted by the applicant that respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not paid the dues of the bank as per demand and therefore the revenue authorities of the District Magistrate are issuing notices for taking possession of the secured asset. The bank has all right to

¶33

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 7 of 19

¶34

take action for recovery by legal mode. The applicant No.1 M/s. Suntop Hotels Pvt. Ltd through Directors namely Mr. Ganesh Shankarlal Darak and Mr. Vijaykumar Devichand Baheti obtained loan of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only) for Working Capital Loan facility and mortgaged the suit property vide registered Mortgage Deed bearing Day Book No.3894/2009 in Sub-Registrar Office No.6 Aurangabad on 01.08.2009 and created the first mortgage charge of the bank. The contention of the applicants that they did not receive demand notice is false. The respondent bank has filed copies of acknowledgement of service of demand notice by Registered Post A.D. on M/s. Suntop Hotels Pvt. Ltd through Mr. Ganesh Shankarlal Darak, through Mr. Vijaykumar Devichand Baheti, Mr. Dinesh Shankarlalji Darak, Smt. Kiran Vijaykumar Baheti. The demand notice as well as possession notices are issued as per law. The applicant did not approach this Tribunal within 45 days from the date of taking possession i.e. on 27.05.2019 and therefore it is not opened for the applicants to contend anything about possession notice dated 27.05.2019 and demand notice dated 13.03.2019. The alleged Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven

¶35

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 8 of 19

¶36

Lacs only) DD was never given to the banks towards payment pertaining to OTS and only representations were made and the applicants have made misleading assertions regarding settlement in the application. The District Magistrate has passed order dated 08.10.2021 in Securitisation Application No.155/2020 after considering all aspects and as per Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court, the applicants have admitted service on Whatsapp., which is now recognized as a mode of service. The applicants have not filed their own calculation in support of their contention that the bank has charged excess interest. The applicants have not produced any letter of the bank intimating sanction of OTS as well as terms and conditions of the OTS and applicant on their own side cannot insist to provide benefit of OTS unless it is sanctioned as per applicable policy. The applicants are receiving monthly rent from Idea Cellular Mobile Tower erected on the mortgage property from 2011 but that rent has not deposited. The applicants have given the hotel on rent and they are not carrying business as the hotel was initially given on rent to Galaxi Imperial and presently it is given on rent to Hotel Kalash Plaza. The applicants are

¶37

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 9 of 19

¶38

getting rent as they have rented out the mortgage property without the permission of the bank. The applicants have not pointed out any objection against the demand notice under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. There is no illegality in the action of the respondent No.1. The applicants have failed to comply the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal regarding further payment of 30% amount of demand notice in three weeks. The respondent No.1 and 2 bank denied other allegations of the application and dismissal of the same was prayed for.

¶39

The respondent nos.1 and 2 (Bank) filed Affidavit of Evidence vide Diary No.7916/2023 of the person / authorised officer of the bank on similar lines as set-up in the above referred written statement submitted by the respondent No.1 and 2.

¶40

The applicants in support of the allegations of the Securitisation Application, filed following documents on record alongwith List of documents vide Exhibit-4.

¶41

Sr.No.	Documents	Annexure
1.	A copy of the notice issued by the Respondents	A-1
	under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002
	dated 13.03.2019.
2.	Application to the respondent no.2 dated	A-2

¶42

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 10 of 19

¶43

	27.03.2019..
3.	A copy of the application for one time settlement dated 02.11.2019.	A-3
4.	A copy of application dated 09.12.2021.	A-4
5.	Copy of receipts dated 22.12.2022 worth Rs.1,12,500 & receipts dated 05.05.2022 worth Rs.16,000/- of Ajanta co-operative bank.	A-5-Colly
6.	A copy of Communication dated 09.05.2022	A-6
7.	A copy of cheque bearing cheque number 640711 drawn on the Ajanta Urban Co-operative Bank.	A-7
8.	A copy of communication dated 31.05.2022	A-8
9.	A copy of communication from upper tahsildar to naib tahsildar and circle officer regarding possession scheduled on 02.03.2023.	A-9

¶44

In support of the allegations of the written statement, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed following documents vide List of Documents Exhibit-11.

¶45

Sr.No.	Particulars	Annexure
1.	The copy of Mortgage Deed registered at Day Book No.3894/2009 in Sub Registrar Office No.6 Aurangabad	R-1
2.	The copies of acknowledgements of Service of Demand Notice by Registered Post A.D. on M/s. Suntop Hotels Private Limited through Ganesh Shankarlal Darak, M/s. Suntop Hotels Private Limited through Vijaykumar Devichand Baheti, Shri Dinesh Shankarlal darak and Smt. Kiran Vijaykumar Baheti.	R-2
3.	The copy of Order dated 8/10/2021 passed in Securitisation Application No.155/2020 by District Magistrate, Aurangabad.	R-3

¶46

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 11 of 19

¶47

The copy of proof that third party is running business in the mortgaged premises without R-4 consent of bank and authority.

¶48

The respondents have also filed documents alongwith Affidavit of Evidence vide Diary No.7916/2023, dated

¶49

19.12.2023, which are as under:

¶50

Sr.No.	Particulars	Annexure
1.	The Demand Notice dated : 22.10..2021 issued by the respondent Bank to Borrower Suntop Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Through Vijaykumar Baheti in Marathi with its translation in English.	R-5
2.	The Notice dated 02.09.2022 in Marathi alognwith its true translation in English issued by Bank to the Borrower to pay its dues..	R-6
3.	The copy of extension of restrictions dated 6.12.2023 issued by Reserve Bank of India on the Respondent Bank under Banking Regulation Act.	R-7

¶51

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written submissions filed by the respondent bank as well as other material on record thoroughly and carefully. My findings are as under:-

¶52

FINDINGS

¶53

The applicants have not disputed the factum of raising loan of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lacs only) from the respondent No.2 for construction on 29.10.2009 through applicant No.2 and respondent No.5 as Directors of the

¶54

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 12 of 19

¶55

applicant No.1. The applicant No.2 and the respondent No.5 are the mortgagors whereas the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the guarantors. The applicants have admitted that they could not repay the loan amount due to suffer of losses on account of recession and demonetization and their account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA).

¶56

After declaring the loan account as NPA, the respondent bank initiated recovery proceedings against the applicants and issued a demand notice dated 13.03.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.31,63,042/- (Rupees Thirty-One Lacs, Sixty-Three Thousand and Forty-Two Only). The applicants did not submit any objections under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act to the respondent bank against this demand notice. It is claimed by the applicants that they did not receive demand notice except on the Whatsapp of the applicant director. The applicants have admitted service of demand notice through Whatsapp. The respondent bank has also produced document Annexure-R-2 being copies of acknowledgement of service of demand notice through the registered post on M/s. Suntop Hotel Pvt. Ltd., through Mr. Ganesh Shankarlal Darak, Mr. Vijaykumar Devichand

¶57

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 13 of 19

¶58

Baheti, Mr. Dinesh Shankarlal Darak and Smt. Kiran Vijaykumar Baheti. Copies of all the four acknowledgements have been produced on record as Annexure R-2. Therefore, it is established that demand notice was duly served to the applicants and other Directors of the applicant Company but they did not raise any objection against the demand notice.

¶59

It is also submitted on behalf of the applicants that when they came to know about the proceedings initiated by the bank under SARFAESI Act, they moved an application Annexure-A-2 on 27.03.2019 and further moved OTS application Annexure A-3. It has also claimed by the applicants that even they have issued Cheque Annexure A-7 for Rs.14,71,864/- (Rupees Fourteen Lacs, Seventy-One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty-Four only) drawn on the Ajanta Urban Co-operative Bank in view of OTS. It is also submitted that on the demand of the bank, the applicant deposited Rs.1,12,500/- (Rupees One Lac, Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred only) on 22.12.2022 and Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) on 05.05.2022 as per Annexure A-5 but the bank did not convey any settlement to the applicants. It may be noted here that the

¶60

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 14 of 19

¶61

applicants have produced copy of receipt for payment of Rs.1,12,500/- (Rupees One Lac, Twelve Thousand and Five Hundred only) and Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) as Annexure A-5 but there is no document on record that any One Time Settlement has taken place between the parties. In Written Statement, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have denied any One Time Settlement took place with the applicants and there is no evidence of OTS and clearance of Cheque Annexure A-7. From this evidence, it reflects that the applicants have created a story of One Time Settlement on their own whereas except communication there is no proposal for settlement was submitted by the applicants to the bank. The respondent bank has denied payment of the amount as reflected in copy of Cheque Annexure A-7. It was the duty of the applicants to produce evidence on record or statement on their own account that this cheque was debited. Therefore, the story set up by the applicants for One Time Settlement is not sustainable. It is also established that the applicants never made serious efforts to settle the loan account except to move formal communication to the respondent bank.

¶62

It may be noted here that even the applicants have not made

¶63

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 15 of 19

¶64

compliance of order dated 01.03.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present Securitisation Application whereby the applicants were directed to further pay of 30% amount of demand notice in three weeks. This order was passed by this Tribunal when the bank has issued possession notice for taking possession of mortgaged property on 02.03.2023 and interim relief was granted to the applicants subject to deposit of 30% of amount of demand notice before possession and pay another 30% of amount of demand notice within three weeks. The applicants shall move One Time Settlement proposal to the respondent bank within three weeks which may be considered by the bank as per its policy. Therefore, the applicants have not made compliance of part of the order dated 01.03.2023, meaning thereby, they were not interested to settle the loan account and to pay the outstanding amount after negotiation with the bank. Therefore, the respondent bank has proceeded against the applicants / borrowers in accordance with the provisions of SARFAESI Act and there is no apparent illegality in the proceedings conducted by the bank.

¶65

The present Securitisation Application has been filed by M/s. Suntop Hotel Pvt. Ltd. through its Director

¶66

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 16 of 19

¶67

Shri Piyush Devichand Baheti. The loan was raised on behalf of the applicant No.1 through Director applicant No.2 and respondent No.5 and at that time Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti was not Director. Since the applicant No.1 is a Private Limited Company, even no resolution of Board of Directors have been produced on record to authorize Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti as Director to file the present Securitisation Application. Moreso, Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti has no concern with the loan transaction as he was neither Director nor Guarantor for the loan availed from the bank as per documents. Hence, this Securitisation Application filed by Mr. Piyush Devichand Baheti in absence of resolution is not maintainable on behalf of applicant No.1.

¶68

The respondent bank has produced document Annexure R-4 proving the fact that third party is running business in the mortgaged premises without consent of the bank. In Annexure R-4, on the premises, sign board of Kalash Plaza has been reflected. From copy of photographs Annexure R-4, it has also established that Mobile Tower has also been installed over the roof of the secured premises. Therefore, conduct of the applicants is such that they are getting

¶69

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 17 of 19

¶70

income from the mortgaged premises but they are not paying the outstanding loan of the respondent bank. Even, otherwise providing the premises to third party for running business without the permission of the bank is not permissible.

¶71

The applicants have challenged order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. This Securitisation Application was filed on 23.02.2023 whereas from the measures initiated by the respondent bank, the applicants could have challenged the same within 45 days from the date of order of the District Magistrate. No separate application has been filed by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the present Securitisation Application. Even no sufficient cause or plausible explanation has been submitted by the applicants for this inordinate delay in filing of the present Securitisation Application. Therefore, this Securitisation Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank against the applicants under the SARFAESI Act are not liable to be set-aside on any of the grounds as alleged in the Securitisation

¶72

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 18 of 19

¶73

Application and this Securitisation Application is liable to be dismissed.

¶74

For the reasons recorded above, the present Securitisation Application No.57/2023 is liable to be dismissed.

¶75

In view of above observations, I pass the following order.

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(A) Securitisation Application No.57/2023 is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶78

(B) Accordingly, all the pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stands disposed of in terms of the present judgment.

¶79

¶80

Sd/- Pronounced in open (Dr. J.R. Chauhan) Court. Presiding Officer Date : 08.12.2025. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶81

[SBJ] (SA No.57/2023) Page 19 of 19

Suntop Hotels Private Limited v. Dwarkadas Manrti Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suntop Hotels Private Limited v. Dwarkadas Manrti Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

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

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Subhash Mansaram Patil (Jadhav)

Union Bank of India versus Vasant Punju Patil

Union Bank of India versus Navnath Tatyaba Dhere

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Smt. Suvarna Vishnu Satale

Punjab National Bank versus Smt. Priti Narendra Patil

State Bank of India versus M/s Kalshetti Highway Service