Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
VIKAS SHINGADE vs THE AMRAVATI MERCHANTS CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ORS on 1 October 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson M.A. No. 443/2016 (WoD)
In
Regular Appeal No. 141/2016
Between
Vikas Shingade
… Appellant/s
V/s.
The Amravati Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd.
& Ors.
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 01/10/2026: -
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. Sunil Humbre, Counsel for the Appellant. No representation for the Respondents despite repeated calls.
2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Borrower would submit that this is an old case, previously Advocate “Mr. Sachin Fuladi” had been appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. Service of affidavit dated 09.05.2022 says that service is complete on all the Respondents.
3. The Respondents are proceeded ex-parte accordingly.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Applicant would submit that an application I.A. No. 443/2016 is pending before this Appellate Tribunal which is ostensibly under the head of waiver of deposit, however, in essence this application is filed for the relief of exemption from depositing any mandatory pre-deposit as the Appellant is neither the borrower nor the guarantor and has no liability to pay anything to the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Financial institution.
5. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that Appellant is the brother of the alleged original borrower i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and the property mortgaged by them is in the name of the deceased father of the appellant ; that , the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 did not have any authority to mortgage the same that even the title deeds of the property is in the possession of the Appellant therefore, the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Financial Institution did not have any authority to take this property as collateral security and seek the remedy by enforcing the mortgage and take its possession under the SARFAESI Act which is under challenge before this Appellate Tribunal.
6. Considered and perused the record.
7. In view of the above submission M.A. No. 443/2016 is allowed.
8. List the matter on 08.01.2027 for hearing. Sd/- Chairperson 01.10.2026
VKC-11