Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs M/S STAR SHOCKABSORBERS on 8 February 2024
Before Arun Kumar Singal, Presiding Officer DRT-III, Vashi, Navi Mumbai Miscellaneous Application No.8 of 2024
Presented on : 15.01.2024
Decided on : 08.02.2024
1. Mr. Iftekhar Ahmed Ansari,
2. Mrs. Sameena Ahmed Ansari,
Residing at Flat No.204, 2<sup>nd</sup> Floor, Ansari Complex, 'A' Wing, Woolen Chawl, Near Mekka Masjid, Ambernath (w), Dist- Thane, Plot No.B-27, 28, 35 and 36, 103, Sector-20, Village Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Taluka and District Thane.
...APPLICANTS
V/s.
1. Bank of Maharashtra,
Having their branch office at Kalyan Branch, Shivaji Chowk, Kalyan (w) 421 301.
2. M/s. Star Shockabsorbers,
Through its prop. Mr. Gopal Babu Gotur, having office at Opp. Prem Auto Birla College Road, Shivaji Chowk, Kalyan (w) 421 301.
3. Mr. Gopal Babu Gotur,
Flat No.204, 2<sup>nd</sup> floor, Ansari Complex, 'A' Wing, Woolen Chawl, Near Mekka Masjid, Ambernath (w), Dist-Thane.
4. Mr. Anand Prabhakar Shirodkar,
Flat No.509, Alishan Residency, Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan (w), Thane 421 301.
...RESPONDENTS
**Argued By -**
Advocate Mr. Naved for the Applicants.
Advocate Ms. P.S. Kharat 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.
**ORDER**
1. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of the Miscellaneous Application bearing No.8 of 2024.
2. 2. It is the plea of the Applicants that vide Agreement for Sale dt.07.08.2009, they purchased property from Mohammad Shafi Yusuf Shaikh for consideration however, they sold the same property again to the borrower of the Respondent No.1 i.e. Bank of Maharashtra whereas, the Applicants are still in possession of the suit property since its purchase and he filed the Application for intervention before the Ld. Recovery Officer which was dismissed on 02.11.2023 and before that, they applied for complete set of documents on 02.09.2023 and because of change of advocate, the Applicants, being layman, could not get the copies and filed this Application on 15.01.2023 and accordingly prayed for condonation of delay in filing the Securitisation Application.
3. 3. The application has been opposed by the counsel for the Respondent Bank as according to her, the Applicants have no *locus standi* and 30 days' time has already lapsed and according to the Respondent Bank, earlier in Recovery
*John* 08-02-2024
Proceeding, the physical possession of the mortgaged property was scheduled for 16.09.2023 by the Court Receiver, appointed for this purpose, but praecipe was filed by advocate on 12.09.2023 for taking up the matter for urgent hearing and after hearing both the parties, the Application of the Applicants to become a party was rejected and accordingly, the Respondent Bank has prayed for dismissal of the Miscellaneous Application.
4. After hearing the respective counsel for the parties, this Tribunal is not inclined to condone the delay. The Applicants are claiming their possession on the suit property on the basis of unregistered Agreement for Sale and tried to become party in the Recovery Proceeding filed by the Respondent Bank against the borrower, but their application was declined on 02.11.2023. The Applicants could have filed Appeal against that Order within 30 days, but instead of filing Appeal in time, they have filed this Application for delay condonation on 15.01.2024 which is patently time-barred as the Applicants could have filed this Application in 30 days. It was within the knowledge of the Applicants that intervention application has been rejected. So, they should have been prompt enough to challenge the Order of the Ld. Recovery Officer within time limit of 30 days. The reason given by the Applicants that there was change of advocate and the Applicants were layman is not sufficient reason to condone the delay. The Application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
5. Nothing expressed herein above shall be deemed to be any expression of the merits of this case.
*Typed By - S S Bhansale, PS*
*Arun Kumar* (ARUN KUMAR SINGAL) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI
**DRT-III MUMBAI**