Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA vs MS MAHABIR STORES on 11 September 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Misc. Appl. Dy. No. 870 of 2026
(Arising out of IA 1729/2026 in SA 128/2026 – DRT-I Kolkata)
**THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON**
Order No. 03
11.09.2026
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. Bank of Maharashtra, having head office at Lokmangal, 1501, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005 and Regional office at McLeod House, 3, N.S.Road, Kolkata – 700001.
2. The Authorised Officer, Bank of Maharashtra Office At Mid Corporate Branch BE-84, Sector 1, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700064
... Appellant
--Vs--
1. M/s Shree Mahabir Stores, 170/1, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bara Bazar, Kolkata – 700007.
2. Shri Aayush Sarawgi, Residing At Flat No 12K, 12th Floor, Tower IV, Sharachi Greenwood, Sonata Rajarhat, New Town, Action Area 2D, North 24 Parganas – 700157.
3. Shri Kamal Kumar Sarawgi, Residing At 11N, Tower 3, Greenwood Sonata, New Town, Action Area, 2D, Newtown, Rajarhat Gopalpur (M), North 24 Parganas, 700157.
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. Somraj Dutta , Id. Sr. Adv.
For Respondent :
**THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL**
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. Despite service none is present for the respondent.
Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 10.07.2026 passed by learned DRT-I Kolkata. For the sake of brevity impugned order is reproduced below :
"Learned counsel for respondent bank appears.
Learned counsel for bank has filed objection to I.A. 1729 of 2026 to which applicant may file any rejoinder within three days.
List I.A. 1729 of 2026 on the date fixed i.e. 27.07.2026.
Since the Tribunal is in cession of the matter, bank is directed to wait for order of this Tribunal."
Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned DRT has passed restrain order against the bank. It is further submitted that without recording any reason restrain order against the bank was passed by the learned DRT.
It appears that bank has made its own interpretation about the impugned order. In the impugned order learned DRT has not restrained the bank rather simply cautioned the bank to wait for order of this Tribunal. In pending S.A. regular orders have to be passed by the DRT. Impugned order is not a restrain order.
Accordingly, appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Although this appeal should have been dismissed with costs as it is an abuse of the process of law. However, appeal is dismissed with the above observation made in the body of the judgment without passing any order as to costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Copy of the Order be uploaded in the Tribunal's website.
Order dictated, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11<sup>th</sup> day of September, 2026.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated : 11.09.2026 03/pkb
11.09.2026