Dismissed

1.Ajay Chandrakant Madane v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT21 Apr 2026SA/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an interim application seeking a stay on possession of mortgaged property following the sale of the asset. Rejecting the claim of moratorium because the sale certificate was issued prior to the insolvency petition, the court dismissed the plea as devoid of merit pending proper proof of the NCLT petition status.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.1336 of 2026 stands dismissed as devoid of merit.

1.Ajay Chandrakant Madane versus Bank of Maharashtra — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/c Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai At: DRI- II, Mumbai

¶2

I.A. No.1336 of 2026 In Securitisation Application No.6 of 2025

¶3

Sr. No.3 Decided on : 21.04.2026

¶4

1. Ajay Chandrakant Madane & Ors.

¶5

...APPLICANT/s

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Bank of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

^{...RESPONDENT/s}

¶9

Argued By –

¶10

Mr Chandara Bhusan Mishra, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr Aayush Kothari and Mr Sachin Patil i/b Mr Nitesh Agarwal, Advocates for the Respondent No.1 & 2. None for the other Respondents.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing I.A. No.1336 of 2026.

¶13

By way of I.A. No.1336 of 2026, the Applicants pray to stay the possession of the Flat No.B-1501, 15^th Floor, Sanghavi Solitaire, Plot No.22 B (P), Opposite Sukurwadi Bus Stand, Village Kanheri, Carter Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400066 (for short “the said property”) scheduled on 21.04.2026.

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that petition under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 has been filed against the Applicant No.1 before NCLT, Mumbai, so, there is moratorium under Section 96 of IBC, 2016. So, the Respondent Bank cannot take SARFAESI action. Hence, stay should be granted.

¶16

Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that the Applicants availed the loan facility for Rs.1 Crore 25 Lakh, and mortgaged the said property. The Applicants failed and neglected to repay the amount and account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2022. The Demand notice under section 13(2) was issued for amount of Rs.1,65,14,018/-. The Respondent took possession on 19.12.2025.

¶17

Ld. Advocate for the Applicants further submitted that previously petition under section 95 was filed against the Applicant No.1 on 09.04.2025 and petition under section 94 was filed on 27.10.2025, both had been declined to register. The Respondent bank sold the said property for an amount of on 01.11.2025 which was never Rs.1,96,54,000/-

¶18

challenged. The sale certificate has been issued and registered. Now, the Applicant stated another petition under

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

section 95 IBC, 2016 but failed to produce present status report.

¶21

Ld. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that socalled petition under section 95 dated 24.03.2026 was filed however, sale certificate registered bearing No.4129 of 2026, so, Applicants cannot take advantage of the moratorium.

¶22

Heard Ld. Advocates for the parties. Perused the record.

¶23

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has not provided the status report and so-called petition filed before NCLT under section 95 of IBC, 2016.

¶24

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards the order of NCLT, Mumbai dated 02.09.2025 passed in Rozina Firoz Hajiani Vs Union Bank of India in that if the sale is completed before filing of the Insolvency petition and sale certificate had already been issued before the Moratorium under section 95 in that position. The Applicant cannot take advantage of the moratorium against it appears prospectively in view of the affirmed by Hon’ble NCLAT and Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 26.02.2026.

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

10.In the wake of foregoing discussion, nothing remains in the present I.A. There is no prima facie case in favour of the Applicants. Balance of convenience also does not tilt in favour of the Applicants. Accordingly, I.A. No.1336 of 2026 is devoid of merit and hence, rejected.

¶27

11.Accordingly, I.A. No.1336 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶28

Sd/(HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) I/c PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, MUMBAI At: DRT-II, Mumbai

¶29

Tejas

¶30

Page 4 of 4

1.Ajay Chandrakant Madane v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

1.Ajay Chandrakant Madane v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Nilesh Hansraj Gupta versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Samra versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Valens Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Mr Prasad Hrishchandra Mankame versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited and Others

Ms Vrajilal Hargovind versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Gourmet Foods and Beverages versus Smfg India Credit Company Limited