Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MS VARDHAN MARKETING COMPANY vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 1 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present :- SHRI KRISHNA GOPAL DWIVEDI,
PRESIDING OFFICER
Dated 01<sup>th</sup> June, 2026
MA 76 of 2025 in SA 437 of 2021
Between
1. M/s. Vardhan Marketing Company, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Naga Malleswara Swamy, S/o. Bangaraiah Marisetty, Residing at D.No. 54-9-48, Beside Sweet Magic, Block E-15, Plot No. 5, 100 Feet Road, Vijayawada- 520 007
2. Mr. Naga Malleswara Swamy, S/o. Bangaraiah Marisetty, Residing at D.No. 41-1/19-2, TF-3, A.B. Towers, Balaji Nagar, Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada
..... Petitioners/Applicants
And
1. Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) represented by its Authorised Signatory, having Branch Office situated at Kanuru Branch, Vijayawada, Krishna District- 520 007
2. Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Corporation Bank) represented by its Authorised Signatory, having Regional Office situated at First Floor, Raja Rangayyapparao Street, Near Bodemma Hotel, Vijayawada, Krishna District- 520 007
..... Respondents
Ld Counsel for Applicants
- Smt B. Neelima
Ld Counsel for Respondent No.1& 2
- Shri CVSL Raju
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**
In the above MA the applicants has prayed to condone the delay of 1083 days in filing the petition under Sec. 22(2) of RDDBFI Act to restore the above SA 437/2021 which was dismissed for default on 20.06.2022.
In this MA the applicant has submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic situation the applicant could not comply the order of this Tribunal and only paid part payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Applicant preferred writ petition in W.P.No. 8093/2021 for stay of the possession notice issued under Sec. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The writ petition was pending before Hon'ble High Court and respondent again sent a sale notice dt. 05.10.2021, hence the applicant filed this SA 437/2021 before this Tribunal. The Respondent again sent sale notice dt. 19.11.2021 fixing auction on 16.12.2021. The applicant further preferred another writ petition in W.P.No. 29531 of 2021 and Hon'ble High Court passed an interim order dt. 14.12.2021 and directed the applicants to comply the order dt, 25.03.2021 in SA N. 270/2020. The applicant paid 40% amount to the Respondent bank. The Respondent bank again and again issued auction notices and finally issued E-Auction notice on 29.01.2024 fixing the date of auction on 28.02.2024. The applicants filed W.P.No. 5323/2024 before Hon'ble High Court and same is pending. The applicant filed another writ petition No. 13388/2024 but Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said writ petition.
The Respondent bank again issued auction notice dt. 26.07.2024 wherein on 14.08.2024 the auction will be conducted. Applicant challenged that order and further filed W.P.No. 17213 of 2024 on 05.08.2024 and initially the Hon'ble High court granted stay as the property has been sold to a third party. After hearing the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition on 24.01.2025. Applicant immediately preferred Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP.No. 12920/2025 but the applicant withdraw the special leave petition with liberty to file a representation before the bank.
As per direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court the applicants issued a representation letter on 10.06.2025 to the Respondent bank but the Respondent bank rejected the same and issued reply on 03.07.2025 with all false and frivolous allegations by suppressing the latches of the Respondent bank. The applicant perused the matter with Hon'ble authority and Hon,ble authority dismissed the SA 270/2020 on merits on 09.03.2023. In that connection SA was also dismissed for default on 20.06.2022 for non prosecution of the matter.
The applicant has further submitted that they have not leave the case but filed several applications before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time. None appearance before this court is neither willful nor wanton, it was for the above reason the applicant has strong case and good contest in the matter.
In counter the Respondent has prayed to dismiss the MA with costs. As per respondent the applicants failed to establish sufficient reasons for condonation of in ordinate delay. As per counter Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition No. 13388/2024. The applicant further filed W.P.No. 17213/2024 before Hon'ble High Court and subsequently the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said Writ petition on 24.01.2025 and against the same petitioner filed S.L.P. No. 12920/2025 and subsequently petitioners withdrawn the said special leave petition with liberty to file a representation before the Bank. The applicant has filed the present petitioner to restore SA 437/2021 which was dismissed for default on 20.06.2022 with delay condonation of 1139 days.
As per Respondent the petitioners are chronic litigants and he was aware of all the proceedings. He failed to perused the SA 437/2021 and SA 437/2021 was dismissed on 20.06.2022 for default for non prosecution of the matter. The Respondent further submitted that after dismissing of above SA 437/2021 the petitioners here in approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.No. 29531/2021 on 14.12.2021 and also filed another W.P.No. 5323/2024 and W.P.No. 13388/2024 and also filed another W.P.No. 17213/2024 filed on 05.08.2024 and approached the Hon'ble Supreme court of India by filing S.L.P No. 12920/2025 all these writ petitions filed by the petitioners by referring the SA 437/2021 which was dismissed for default which clearly and clinchingly established the knowledge of the petitioners about the dismissal of SA 437/2021 for default. The Respondent further submitted that the petitioners herein having knowledge of dismissal of SA 437/2021 kept quiet for a period of three years and filed the above application for setting aside the default order with a condonation of the inordinate delay of 1139 days without any sufficient reason.
Perused the record. After perusal of the record I find that petitioner had knowledge of dismissal of SA 437/2021 and petitioner has not given any specific reason for non appearance for long time in the present SA. The petitioner has not given sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in the present case.
On the basis of above discussion MA 76/2025 is hereby dismissed on contest without costs. All connected IAs if any are also closed.
(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 01<sup>st</sup> day of June, 2026)
PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM