Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
RAJENDRA VITHAL SHINDE vs BANK OF INDIA on 27 October 2026
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI
Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson
I.A. No. 635/ 2026(Extension of Time)
In
Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1836/2026
Between
Rajendra Vithal Shinde & Anr.
… Appellant/s
V/s.
Bank of India & Ors.
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 27/10/2026: -
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:
Ms. Trupti Nadoskar , i/b M/s S & T Associates, Counsel for the Appellants. Mr. Rajesh Nagory, along with Kashish Ahmed, i/b M/s KS Legal, Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Bank. Mr. Puneet Gogad, Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.
2. Vide order dated 21.10.2026, the Tribunal directed the Appellants to deposit the amount of ₹14,71,50,000/- on or before 26.10.2026. However, Appellants could not comply with the direction of this Appellate Tribunal.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants moved an application (I.A. No. 635/2026) seeking extension of time by one day for depositing the pre-deposit amount, as directed by this Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 21.10.2026.
4. Heard.
5. The Learned Counsel would submit that due to paucity of time, the Appellants could not deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period ending on 26.10.2026. Today, the Appellants have produced two Demand Drafts, one for ₹10,00,00,000/- dated 26.10.2026, and the other for ₹4,71,50,000/-, dated 27.10.2026
6. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Bank vehemently opposed the aforesaid application, contending that the direction contained as per paragraph 19 of the order dated 21.10.2026 the Appel would stand dismissed id deposit is not made.
7. Considered and perused the record. This Appellate Tribunal is of considered view that no prejudice would be cause to Respondents if time to make deposit is extended. On the other hand, if same is not extended then same would amount to denial of right to appeal when the amount drafts are being tendered as pre-deposit.
8. I.A. No. 635/2026 is allowed in the interest of justice.
9. Registry is directed to number the Appeal along with Interlocutory Applications if any, if it is otherwise in order.
10. List the case on 29.10.2026 for hearing. Sd/- Chairperson 27.10.2026 MKS(PS)-04