SHILPI FIOCKING COMPANY PRIVATE AND ORS vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 16 June 2026

16.06.2026 Exh Roznama-MDRT-II M.A. No.26 of 2026 Next date

Mr Farid Khan and Mr J.P. Jaiswal, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms N.I. Bakali and Ms Dimple Tejani, Advocates for Respondent.

The present M.A. No.26 of 2026 filed for condonation of delay of 80 days in filing S.A. (D) No.1590 of 2025. Ld. Advocate for the Applicants submitted that on 22.11.2024, the OTS was approved by Respondent Bank for a sum of Rs.20 crores. The Applicants have paid Rs.9.30 crores towards the OTS. On 25.03.2026, the Applicants requested the Respondent to renew the OTS offer given to M/s. Shilpi flocking Company Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Purvi metals Pvt. Ltd. Due to unavoidable circumstances and poor market conditions, they were unable to meet the timeline specified in the OTS letter dated 22.11.2024. However, they were able to sell their Bhiwandi lands and the sale proceeds have already been deposited into the Respondent Bank’s account. Ld. Advocate further submitted that Respondent Bank issued a notice for the cancellation of the OTS approved by the Respondent for Rs.20 crores which was received on 08.07.2025. the cancellation of the OTS was arbitrary and oppressive. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the OTS approved and threatened to initiate the SARFAESI measures, the Applicant has preferred the S.A. and prays to condoned the delay of 80 days in filing S.A. (D) No.1590 of 2025. Hence, M.A. No.26 of 2026 should be allowed. Ld. Advocate for Respondent opposed and submitted that the Applicants main grievance pertains to the cancellation of the OTS and refusal of the Respondent bank to extend or renew the same. The communicating relating to OTS cancellation is merely administrative decision of the Bank and does not constitute a measure under Section 13(4) of the SARFAEI Act, 2002. No borrower acquires any enforceable right to insist upon continuation of the extension or renewal of an OTS contrary to its terms and conditions. Ld. Advocate further submitted that the present M.A. is wholly misconceived, untenable and liable to be dismissed as the Applicant does not disclose any sufficient cause, much less cogent, Bonafide and satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of delay. Ld. Advocate also submitted that no dates, events or circumstances have been disclosed to explain why the Applicants were allegedly prevented from approaching this Tribunal within the prescribed period. Hence, M.A. No.26 of 2026 should be rejected. Heard Ld. Advocate for the parties in M.A.

rst - 11 No.26 of 2026. The contention of Ld. Advocate for the Applicant is that as the negotiations were going on with the Respondent Bank and there was bright possibility of further settlement i.e., for the fresh OTS, so, he could not file the S.A. in anticipation of positive response from the Bank. It is mentioned in the M.A. that condonation of delay is of 80 days, that is, from the cancellation of OTS. However, from the date of intimation, it is of 35 days. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, M.A. No.26 of 2026 is allowed subject to cost quantified in the sum of Rs.5000/- payable to DRT Bar Association, Mumbai for purchase of books and periodicals. S.A. (D) No.1590 of 2025 be registered after due compliance. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance. Sd/- P.O. DRT-II

Closed