Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M/s ANJANI CATERING SERVICES, THROUGH ITS PARTNER SMT. SEEMA W/o UJWAL THORAT vs JIJAU COMMERCIAL CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD on 9 October 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 27/2021
Between
M/s. Anjani Catering Services, Through its partner Smt. Seema W/o Ujwal Throat & Ors.
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Jijau Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd.
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 09/10/2026: -
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. Present as under: Mr. Radhe Agrawal, Counsel for Appellants through VC. Mr. Gajendra Sadar, Counsel for Respondent through VC.
2. This appeal is filed by the Appellant borrower against the impugned order dated 27.11.2020 whereby the Lower DRT allowed the interim application of the Appellant/Borrower only partly by staying the e-auction of the property no. 3 only but allowed the e- auction of property no. 2.
3. The Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that after taking the interim injunction from Appellate Tribunal without any final hearing on the interim application for stay, the Appellant/Borrower has been delaying this case for one reason or the other. The Ld. Counsel for Respondent prays for hearing.
4. In reply, the Counsel for Appellant/Borrower would submit that one of the guarantors, Mr. Motiram, who was the father-in-law of the Appellant No. 1 and husband of the Appellant No. 3 had died way back in 2013 but the Respondents did not issue notice under section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act to the legal heir of the deceased/mortgagor.
5. Considered and perused the record.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank would submit that the Appellant/Borrower cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong by failing to implead the legal heirs of the deceased, who was the father-in-law of Appellant No. 1 and the husband of Appellant No. 3, either as appellants or as respondents in the Securitization Application filed by them, or to furnish their particulars in any manner. He would further submit that the impugned order passed by the Learned DRT is legally correct in law and facts , as the e-auction in respect of the property No.3 belonging to the deceased mortgagor has been stayed, whereas the e-auction in respect of Property Nos. 1 and 2, owned by Appellant No. 2/Mortgagor, has been permitted, that too subject to the final outcome of the Securitization Application.
7. At this stage, the Counsel for Appellant seeks adjournment.
8. Strongly objected to by the Counsel for Respondents.
9. However, the adjournment is granted in the interest of justice, subject to the cost of Rs. 20,000/- to DRT Bar Association.
10. The Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that the Appellant be directed to provide the details of the all the legal heirs of the father-in-law of the Appellant No. 1, that is, the husband of Appellant No. 3.
11. The Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that he has already provided and would provide it again on WhatsApp No. 9422190934 of Mr. Gajendra, Counsel for Respondent, within two days.
12. List the matter on 05.02.2027 for final hearing. Sd/- Chairperson 09.10.2026
VKC-10