Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
RAMESH CHAND ASHUTOSH MISHRA vs BANK OF INDIA on 17 May 2025
Exh-8
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT AHMEDABAD
PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY, PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-II.**
**MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2025**
**IN**
**S.A. No. 180 of 2024**
**Date of Order:-17.05.2025**
Ramesh Chand Ashutosh Mishra
Proprietor of M/s Dines Impex,
...Applicant
**Versus**
The Authorized Officer
Bank of India
...Respondent
**Appearance:**
Mr. Tejas Patel, Ld. Counsel for Applicant.
Mr. V. T. Rami, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. 1. The Applicant has filed the present Misc. Application seeking extension of time till 30.06.2025 for compliance of the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal.
2. 2. The Respondent Bank has resisted the present application by filing purshis dated 17.05.2025 at Ex.R/06.
3. 3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused record.
4. 4. It appears on perusal of file that as per undertaking given by the Applicant, this Tribunal has passed order dated 19.11.2024 in SA No. 180 of 2024 directing Applicant to pay the outstanding dues as per the schedule given in para 3 of the said order. However, the Applicant appears to have complied with the said order partly and has paid part of the outstanding dues till 30.01.2025 and hence, failed to comply further order passed by this Tribunal.
1. 5. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant has received notice from Court Commissioner for taking physical possession of the secured asset on 18.05.2025. The Applicant is a bona fide person, who has complied with the order by making payment of substantial part of the outstanding dues of the Respondent Bank and he is also ready and willing to pay interest on the broken period to the Respondent Bank and desires to close the account by 30.06.2025. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant requested to grant extension of time till 30.06.2025 for payment of the remaining outstanding dues and further submitted that if the Applicant fails to do so, the Applicant will surrender actual and physical possession of the secured asset to the Respondent Bank on 01.07.2025, without any resistance.
2. 6. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that the Applicant has given one request letter dated 05.04.2025 by WhatsApp requesting to extend time for balance payment. However, since February 2025, the Applicant has failed to deposit any amount. Hence, the Respondent Bank is compelled to take further action as per default clause narrated in order dated 19.11.2024 and has fixed to take physical possession of the secured asset on 18.05.2025.
3. 7. Considering the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the parties and looking to the breach of his own undertaking committed by the Applicant and failure to comply with order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal in SA No. 180 of 2024, this Tribunal is disinclined to grant any extension of time for payment of the remaining outstanding dues of the Respondent Bank. It is pertinent to note that, but for the undertaking given by the borrowers vide Ex.A/15 in SA No.180 of 2024, this Tribunal would not have directed to Respondent Bank to defer the action of taking physical possession of the secured asset till 15.03.2025. It is further required to be noted that this Tribunal also inserted default clause in order dated 19.11.2024 providing that in case of default, the Respondent will be at liberty to proceed under SARFAESI Act.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that "undertaking" given by the Applicant before this Tribunal in SA No. 180 of 2024 has not been honored by the Applicant fully and therefore, breach of such undertaking should entail the consequences as mentioned in the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal. Hence, the Applicant does not deserve to be granted any extension of time for compliance of order dated 19.11.2024 passed in SA No. 180 of 2024 and the present MA deserves to be dismissed.
9. Order accordingly.
**(PANKAJ KUMAR UPADHYAY)** **PRESIDING OFFICER** **DRT-II, AHMEDABAD**
Nishita.