Partly allowed

Ms Zedeye Technologies Private Limited And Ors. v. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

DRT26 Mar 2026SA/385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an interim application seeking a stay against the bank's possession notice for two properties. The applicant admitted owing 26 lakhs but opposed possession of the property where they conduct business. The Tribunal granted protection against possession only for Gala No. 212.

What did the court decide?

Protection against the taking of physical possession of Gala No. 212 granted

Ms Zedeye Technologies Private Limited And Ors… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

Before Harish Kumar Kaushik, I/C Presiding Officer DRT-III, Mumbai

¶2

I.A. No. 1060 of 2026

¶3

In Securitisation Application No.385 of 2025

¶4

Sr. No.9 Decided on : 26.03.2026

¶5

Ms Zedeye Technologies Private Limited

¶6

... APPLICANT/s

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited ...RESPONDENT/s

¶9

Argued By –

¶10

Mr Pradeep Bhor a/w Adv. Riya Pawar, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr Aayush Kothari a/w Adv. Nikhil Rajani, Advocates for Respondent.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This order of mine shall dispose of the Interim Application bearing I.A. No. 1060 of 2026

¶13

By way of I.A. No. 1060 of 2026, the Applicant prays to restrain the Respondent from taking physical possession of Gala No.211/212, 2^nd floor, Kushal Service Industrial Estate, Kopari, Virar (E) Tal. Vasai, District Palghar 401305 (for short, ‘the said properties’) scheduled on 27.03.2026.

¶14

Ld. Advocate for the Applicant submitted that as per possession notice dated 05.03.2026, Respondent Bank is seeking to take possession of Gala Nos.211 and 212. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the amount due as on today is about Rs.26 lakhs which can be

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

recovered from Gala No.211 and Applicant is not opposing the taking of possession of Gala No.211. He further submitted that the Applicant is running his own business in Gala No.212 from where Applicant earns bread and butter. So, in the interest of justice, prayer for stay against the possession should be allowed only in regard to Gala No.212.

¶17

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent opposed and submitted that from Gala No.211, entire payable amount cannot be recovered. So, Application should be rejected fully.

¶18

Heard Ld. Advocates for the Parties. Perused the Record.

¶19

The Applicant is ready to give possession of Gala No.211 and outstanding amount in this loan account is approximate Rs.26 lakhs. So, in the interest of justice, it appears proper and reasonable to give protection against the possession with regard to Gala No.212.

¶20

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal finds prima facie case in favour of the Applicant only in regard to Gala No.212. Balance of convenience also tilt in favour of the Applicant in respect of Gala No.212. Accordingly, I.A. No.1060 of 2026 is partly allowed only with regard to Gala No.212.

¶21

Accordingly, I.A. No.1060 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/- (HARISH KUMAR KAUSHIK) I/C PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, MUMBAI

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Ms Zedeye Technologies Private Limited And Ors. v. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Zedeye Technologies Private Limited And Ors. v. Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

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

Mr Rohit Prem Chabra versus Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Ratnabai Narayan Kakad

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Harshil Construction Company

Ms Jyoti Paper Udyog Limited And Anr. versus Canara Bank

Rajendra Udaypratap Singh and Bindu Rajendra Singh versus Bank of Baroda

Deshmukh Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India