Dismissed

M/S Visual Instinct India Private Limited v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRT20 Feb 2026MA/112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought condonation of delay in filing a setting aside application regarding secured asset seizure. The Tribunal found no cogent reason for the substantial delay after service of notice and auction proceedings, ordering the matter disposed against the applicants citing Supreme Court precedents on limitation.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and setting aside the recovery proceedings was dismissed.

		S	r. No. 8(UR)
Date	Exh. No.	Roznama Order	Next Date
20.02.2026		The Ld. Counsel for both sides are present. The Ld. Counsel for applicants has filed a pursis mentioning therein the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5751/2025 dated 10.02.2026. The same has been noted by Ld. Counsel for respondents. M.A. No. 112/2025 Heard both sides. The Ld. Counsel for applicants has submitted that due to inadvertence, S.A. could not be filed within stipulated period and they came to know about the action of respondent only when the police personal came to take possession over the secured asset on 20.08.2025. As such, the delay of 191 days in filing S.A. may be condoned. It has
		been further submitted that they had no knowledge with regard to demand notice dated 03.04.2021 and subsequent sale taken place on 23.08.2023. He has further submitted that the judgments relied by respondents are not applicable in the present context. As such, the same may be allowed.	Contd.

r. No. 8(UR)

Date

Exh.
No.

Roznama Order

Next Date

20.02.2026

The Ld. Counsel for both sides are present.
The Ld. Counsel for applicants has filed a
pursis mentioning therein the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.
5751/2025 dated 10.02.2026. The same has been
noted by Ld. Counsel for respondents.
M.A. No. 112/2025
Heard both sides.
The Ld. Counsel for applicants has submitted
that due to inadvertence, S.A. could not be filed
within stipulated period and they came to know
about the action of respondent only when the
police personal came to take possession over the
secured asset on 20.08.2025. As such, the delay
of 191 days in filing S.A. may be condoned. It has

been further submitted that they had no
knowledge with regard to demand notice dated
03.04.2021 and subsequent sale taken place on
23.08.2023. He has further submitted that the
judgments
relied
by
respondents are
not
applicable in the present context. As such, the
same may be allowed.

Contd.

Contd.	The same has been opposed by Ld. Counsel
20.02.2026	for respondent no. 1, who has submitted that relevant documents with regard to demand notice dated 03.04.2021 has been annexed with pending S.A. and subsequently symbolic possession notice of secured asset was issued on 18.10.2021 and the applicants were well aware with regard to auction of the secured asset taken place on 23.08.2023 & issuance of sale certificate in favour of respondent no. 2 on 10.04.2024 and the order passed by Ld. 16^thJt. CJSD & ACJM, Nagpur dated 17.01.2025 in connection with Cri. M.A. No. 5717/2025. Even then, the applicants have intentionally not filed S.A. within stipulated period as required U/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act. As such, there is delay of 1621 days in filing S.A. It has been further submitted on his behalf that no cogent reason has been assigned by applicants for condoning such delay and in view of judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 8435 - 8436 of 2024 in (@ SLP (Civil) Nos. 2733 - 2734 of 2024) dated 05.08.2024 and 2026 LawSuit (SC) 34 dated 07.01.2026, the same may not be allowed. The Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards the conduct of the applicants in not arguing the case and being absent on 12.12.2025, 26.12.2025,
	05.01.2026, 16.02.2026 and has sought adjournment for arguing the case on 18.02.2026, even after completion of pleadings on 21.11.2025, even after having full knowledge with regard to the	Contd.

The same has been opposed by Ld. Counsel

20.02.2026

for respondent no. 1, who has submitted that
relevant documents with regard to demand notice
dated 03.04.2021 has been annexed with pending
S.A. and subsequently symbolic possession
notice of secured asset was issued on 18.10.2021
and the applicants were well aware with regard to
auction of the secured asset taken place on
23.08.2023 & issuance of sale certificate in favour
of respondent no. 2 on 10.04.2024 and the order
passed by Ld. 16^thJt. CJSD & ACJM, Nagpur
dated 17.01.2025 in connection with Cri. M.A. No.
5717/2025. Even then, the applicants have
intentionally not filed S.A. within stipulated period
as required U/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act. As such,
there is delay of 1621 days in filing S.A. It has
been further submitted on his behalf that no
cogent reason has been assigned by applicants
for condoning such delay and in view of
judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 8435 - 8436 of 2024
in (@ SLP (Civil) Nos. 2733 - 2734 of 2024) dated
05.08.2024 and 2026 LawSuit (SC) 34 dated
07.01.2026, the same may not be allowed.
The Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 has
drawn attention of this Tribunal towards the
conduct of the applicants in not arguing the case
and being absent on 12.12.2025, 26.12.2025,

05.01.2026,
16.02.2026
and
has
sought
adjournment for arguing the case on 18.02.2026,
even after completion of pleadings on 21.11.2025,
even after having full knowledge with regard to the

Contd.

Contd.	order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
20.02.2026	Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5751/2025 dated 26.09.2025. The Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that they have purchased the secured asset in e-auction conducted on 16.08.2023 and the sale certificate has already been issued in their favour on 10.04.2024 and the same has not been challenged within stipulated period by the applicants. As such, the delay in filing S.A. may not be condoned. Considering the submissions of both sides and material placed on record, it is apparent clear that demand notice dated 03.04.2021 has been issued and served on the main borrower, who has not approached the Tribunal, despite passing of the order in O.A. No. 403/2021 decided on 06.10.2023 and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the main borrower has appeared in R.P. Case No. 94/2023 prior to filing of this application. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the applicants were not aware with regard to e-auction conducted on 23.08.2023 and the order passed by 16^thJt. CJSD & ACJM, Nagpur dated 17.01.2025 passed in connection with Cri. M.A. No. 5717/2025. It is apparent clear that no cogent reason has been assigned by the applicants why the S.A. has been filed on 10.09.2025 even beyond the limitation period as required U/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act and in view of consistent judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the	Contd.

order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of

20.02.2026

Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Writ Petition No. 5751/2025 dated 26.09.2025.
The Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 has
submitted that they have purchased the secured
asset in e-auction conducted on 16.08.2023 and
the sale certificate has already been issued in
their favour on 10.04.2024 and the same has not
been challenged within stipulated period by the
applicants. As such, the delay in filing S.A. may
not be condoned.
Considering the submissions of both sides
and material placed on record, it is apparent clear
that demand notice dated 03.04.2021 has been
issued and served on the main borrower, who has
not approached the Tribunal, despite passing of
the order in O.A. No. 403/2021 decided on
06.10.2023 and there is nothing on the record to
suggest that the main borrower has appeared in
R.P. Case No. 94/2023 prior to filing of this
application. There is nothing on the record to
suggest that the applicants were not aware with
regard to e-auction conducted on 23.08.2023 and
the order passed by 16^thJt. CJSD & ACJM,
Nagpur dated 17.01.2025 passed in connection
with Cri. M.A. No. 5717/2025. It is apparent clear
that no cogent reason has been assigned by the
applicants why the S.A. has been filed on
10.09.2025 even beyond the limitation period as
required U/s. 17 of SARFAESI Act and in view of
consistent judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, I do not find any merit in the

Contd.

Contd.	present application. Accordingly, the same is
20.02.2026	hereby disposed of. Accordingly inform to the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur as required in Writ Petition No. 5751/2025 dated 10.02.2026 in this regard.
	(Pankaj Kumar) Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur.

present application. Accordingly, the same is

20.02.2026

hereby disposed of.
Accordingly inform to the Hon’ble High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
as required in Writ Petition No. 5751/2025 dated
10.02.2026 in this regard.

(Pankaj Kumar)
Presiding Officer,
DRT, Nagpur.

M/S Visual Instinct India Private Limited v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Visual Instinct India Private Limited v. Indian Overseas 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

Thanooja Kappil versus Urban Co. operative Bnak Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/s Singla Trading Company

Icici Bank Limited versus Satwant Singh

Punjab National Bank versus Sh. Amit Doda

Punjab National Bank versus Sampuran Singh

Ms Balya Cements Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank