Allowed

M/s Phoenix Infra Estate International limited v. Bank Of Baroda

DRT11 May 2026MA/2/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an applicant's filing for condonation of delay in filing a Special Leave Petition, deeming the delay condoned based on prior High Court and Supreme Court judgments that directed the tribunal to decide the matter despite the time lapse.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing S.A. granted in the interest of justice based on relevant orders and directions.

		Sr.	No. 13(UR)
Date	Exh. No.	Roznama Order	Next Date
11.05.2026		HEARING THROUGH HYBRID MODE The Ld. Counsel for both sides are present. The Ld. Counsel for applicants has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025 whereby the petitioner has been directed to avail the remedy as available in law and the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 1204/2026 dated 09.02.2026 whereby this Tribunal has been directed to decide I.A. No. 29/2026 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of order of this Court. M.A. No. 2/2026 Heard both sides. The Ld. Counsel for applicants has sought condonation of delay, if any, in filing of S.A in view of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025 on the ground that in the S.A., they have challenged the e-auction taken place on 08.09.2025 as per e-	Contd.

Sr.

No. 13(UR)

Date

Exh.
No.

Roznama Order

Next Date

11.05.2026

HEARING THROUGH HYBRID MODE
The Ld. Counsel for both sides are present.
The Ld. Counsel for applicants has drawn
attention of this Tribunal towards the order passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay,
Nagpur
Bench,
Nagpur
in
Civil
Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition
No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025 whereby the
petitioner has been directed to avail the remedy
as available in law and the order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.
1204/2026 dated 09.02.2026 whereby this
Tribunal has been directed to decide I.A. No.
29/2026 within a period of 2 weeks from the date
of production of order of this Court.
M.A. No. 2/2026
Heard both sides.
The Ld. Counsel for applicants has sought
condonation of delay, if any, in filing of S.A in view
of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ
Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025 on the
ground that in the S.A., they have challenged the
e-auction taken place on 08.09.2025 as per e-

Contd.

Contd.	auction notice dated 19.08.2025 and they have
11.05.2026	approached the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1204/2026 whereby parties were directed to maintain the status-quo during pendency of I.A. No. 29/2026 and this Tribunal has been directed to decide I.A. No. 29/2026 within 2 weeks from the date of production of order of this Court. It has been further submitted that as per direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025, they approached this Tribunal on 26.12.2025. As such, there is no delay in filing S.A. before this Tribunal and as a matter of precaution, the delay of 60 days in filing of S.A. may be condoned in view of directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court in this regard. It has been further submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 75157/2025, which was disposed of on 01.04.2026 as being infructuous on the grounds mentioned therein. As such, the delay, if any, in filing S.A. may be condoned in the prevailing circumstances. The same has been opposed by the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1, who has submitted that in fact there is delay of more than 4059 days in filing the S.A. as the applicants have never challenged the demand notice dated 21.11.2014 and symbolic possession notice dated	Contd.

auction notice dated 19.08.2025 and they have

11.05.2026

approached the Hon’ble High Court in Writ
Petition No. 1204/2026 whereby parties were
directed to maintain the status-quo during
pendency of I.A. No. 29/2026 and this Tribunal
has been directed to decide I.A. No. 29/2026
within 2 weeks from the date of production of order
of this Court. It has been further submitted that as
per direction passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ
Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025, they
approached this Tribunal on 26.12.2025. As such,
there is no delay in filing S.A. before this Tribunal
and as a matter of precaution, the delay of 60 days
in filing of S.A. may be condoned in view of
directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court in
this regard. It has been further submitted that the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 was challenged
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary
No. 75157/2025, which was disposed of on
01.04.2026 as being infructuous on the grounds
mentioned therein. As such, the delay, if any, in
filing S.A. may be condoned in the prevailing
circumstances.
The same has been opposed by the Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 1, who has submitted
that in fact there is delay of more than 4059 days
in filing the S.A. as the applicants have never
challenged the demand notice dated 21.11.2014
and
symbolic
possession
notice
dated

Contd.

Contd.	19.06.2015. In support of his contention, he has
11.05.2026	relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1006 and in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 34, by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 20193/2025 dated 12.03.2026 and the order passed by Ld. DRT-3, Chennai in I.A. No. 1619/2025 in S.A. No. 457/2025 dated 05.03.2026. As such, the same may not be allowed. The same has also been opposed by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2, who has submitted that he is the successful auction purchaser in favour of whom, sale certificate has been issued on 06.01.2026 and the delay in filing S.A. may not be condoned in view of consistent judgments passed by the Hon’ble Courts, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 34, in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1361, in Writ Petition No. 8100/2019 dated 12.05.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in M.A. (S.A.) 31/2022 reported in (2025) ibclaw.in 126 DRAT passed by the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai dated 13.06.2025, in (2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 38, in 2009 (4) ALL MR 247 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, in 2009 SC OnLine P&H 10293, in 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8035; 2012 SCC OnLine P&H 10582; (2020) 16 SCC 230; 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 10976; in Writ Petion Nos. 1486/2006 dated 04.10.2018 and 6079/2020 dated 17.07.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High
	Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 3375/2021 (C)	Contd.

19.06.2015. In support of his contention, he has

11.05.2026

relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1006 and in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 34, by the
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.
20193/2025 dated 12.03.2026 and the order
passed by Ld. DRT-3, Chennai in I.A. No.
1619/2025
in
S.A.
No.
457/2025
dated
05.03.2026. As such, the same may not be
allowed.
The same has also been opposed by Ld.
Counsel for respondent no. 2, who has submitted
that he is the successful auction purchaser in
favour of whom, sale certificate has been issued
on 06.01.2026 and the delay in filing S.A. may not
be condoned in view of consistent judgments
passed by the Hon’ble Courts, reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 34, in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal
1361, in Writ Petition No. 8100/2019 dated
12.05.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Orissa at Cuttack, in M.A. (S.A.) 31/2022 reported
in (2025) ibclaw.in 126 DRAT passed by the
Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai dated 13.06.2025, in
(2025) 4 Supreme Court Cases 38, in 2009 (4)
ALL MR 247 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, in 2009 SC OnLine P&H
10293, in 2010 SCC OnLine P&H 8035; 2012
SCC OnLine P&H 10582; (2020) 16 SCC 230;
2020 SCC OnLine Bom 10976; in Writ Petion Nos.
1486/2006 dated 04.10.2018 and 6079/2020
dated 17.07.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High

Court
of
Bombay,
Aurangabad
Bench,
Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 3375/2021 (C)

Contd.

Contd.	dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High
11.05.2026	Court of Judicature at Bombay. As such, the same may not be allowed. Considering the submissions of both sides and material placed on record, it is apparent clear that the e-auction has taken place on 08.09.2025 and sale certificate has been issued on 06.01.2026 and applicants approached this Tribunal on 26.12.2025 after necessary liberty granted to applicants in Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025. The same has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 75157/2025 which was disposed of as being infructuous on 01.04.2026. As such, it shall be deemed that the delay, if any, in filing S.A. before this Tribunal has been condoned by the Hon’ble High Court whereby this Tribunal has been directed to dispose of I.A. No. 29/2026 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1204/2026 dated 09.02.2026. In view of orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Application (CAW) No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025 dated 18.12.2025 along with Writ Petition No. 1204/2026 dated 09.02.2026 read with the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 75157/2025 dated 01.04.2026, I am of the view that the present M.A. is maintainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is hereby allowed in the interest of justice.	Contd.

dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Hon’ble High

11.05.2026

Court of Judicature at Bombay. As such, the same
may not be allowed.
Considering the submissions of both sides
and material placed on record, it is apparent clear
that the e-auction has taken place on 08.09.2025
and sale certificate has been issued on
06.01.2026 and applicants approached this
Tribunal on 26.12.2025 after necessary liberty
granted to applicants in Civil Application (CAW)
No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025
dated
18.12.2025.
The
same
has
been
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
SLP Diary No. 75157/2025 which was disposed of
as being infructuous on 01.04.2026. As such, it
shall be deemed that the delay, if any, in filing S.A.
before this Tribunal has been condoned by the
Hon’ble High Court whereby this Tribunal has
been directed to dispose of I.A. No. 29/2026 within
a period of 2 weeks from the date of production of
the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1204/2026
dated 09.02.2026. In view of orders passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Civil Application (CAW)
No. 2916/2025 in Writ Petition No. 4341/2025
dated 18.12.2025 along with Writ Petition No.
1204/2026 dated 09.02.2026 read with the order
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
Diary No. 75157/2025 dated 01.04.2026, I am of
the view that the present M.A. is maintainable in
the eye of law. Accordingly, it is hereby allowed in
the interest of justice.

Contd.

Contd.	The registry the hereby directed to register the
11.05.2026	S.A., if otherwise in order.
	Put up for filing reply to S.A. by respondents and hearing on I.A. Nos. 1950/2025 and 29/2026 on --	12.05.2026
	(Pankaj Kumar) Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur.

The registry the hereby directed to register the

11.05.2026

S.A., if otherwise in order.

Put up for filing reply to S.A. by respondents
and hearing on I.A. Nos. 1950/2025 and 29/2026
on --

12.05.2026

(Pankaj Kumar)
Presiding Officer,
DRT, Nagpur.

M/s Phoenix Infra Estate International limited v. Bank Of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Phoenix Infra Estate International limited v. Bank Of Baroda

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

Bank of India versus Mr Faisal Khan

Yes Bank versus Rcc Limited Nad Anr.

Hdfc Bank versus Sahely Sari Palace and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Sh. Harjit Singh

Shishir Sharma versus Canara Bank

Anita Gupta versus Indian Bank