Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
M/S AKSHARA ENTERPRISE vs KOZYLON INDUSTRIES LIMITED on 10 September 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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON Appeal No. 139 of 2023 Order No. 19 10.09.2026
M/s. Akshara Enterprises (Akshara Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd) ……Appellant -Vs- Kozylon Industries Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents Mr. R.S. Prasad, Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Mr. Subhajit Chowdhary, Learned Counsel for the Appellant None for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Ms. Sreejita Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
Heard the Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellants as well as Learned Counsel for the Secured Creditor. None is present for the Respondent borrower.
2. Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant would submit that against an order passed by the DRT-2 Hyderabad in S.A. No. 272 of 2017, three separate Appeals were preferred by the Auction Purchaser, Secured Creditor as well as the borrower respectively. In the Appeal No. 48 of 2024 filed by the borrower an order was passed by this Appellate Tribunal regarding condonation of delay as well as pre-deposit as required to be made under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. That order was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No. 34471
and 34596 of 2024 wherein an order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad on 12th December, 2024 staying further proceedings before DRAT Kolkata.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that in the Appeal filed by the borrower, challenge is made to the impugned order as far as it relates to delivery of possession to the Financial Creditor and also giving liberty to the secured creditor to proceed afresh. Learned Counsel would submit that those issues are separate from the Appeal filed by the Auction Purchaser as well as the secured creditor. Hence, Appeals filed by the Auction Purchaser and Secured Creditor can be heard. Learned Counsel for the secured creditor has no objection. However, since none is present for the borrower, a detailed order was passed by this Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 48 of 2024 on 11th July, 2025 staying the proceedings in compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court. Situation is the same. There is an order of the Hon’ble High Court staying the proceedings. Three Appeals are pending against the same order which have to be decided by a common judgment in the Appeal, as finding in either of the Appeals would affect the finding in other Appeals. Accordingly, I do not find any force in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant i.e. the Auction Purchaser that appeal filed by the Auction Purchaser and Secured Creditor can be heard separately from the appeal filed by the borrower. Let the further proceedings shall remain stayed in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ
Petition No. 34471 and 34596 of 2024 (Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Ltd. versus M/s. Kozylon Industries Ltd. and others). List on 17th September, 2026 for further order. (Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson Dated 10th September, 2026 7/tp