MS SILICON JEWEL INDSTRIES PVT LTD AND OTHERS vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 4 November 2026

1. Present as under : Mr. Ritesh Patadia, Counsel for Appellants. Mr. Nainesh Amin, Counsel for Respondent No.1/Bank. Mr. Sidharth Samantaray along with Adv. Chinmayee Ghag i/b Zastriya, Counsel for Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser. Mr. Hitesh Phulwani, Counsel for Respondent No. 3/Auction Purchaser.

2. Heard Regular Appeal No.

filed by the Appellants/Borrowers against the impugned order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the DRT-2 Ahmedabad in Securitization Application No. No. 173/2024. By this impugned order, the Ld. DRT-2 Ahmedabad dismissed the Securitization Application of the Appellants/Borrowers.

3. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat at Ahmedabad vide its order dated 03.08.2026

passed in Special Civil Application No. 10584/2026 directed this Appellate Tribunal to decide the Misc. Application on or before 31.08.2026 and the main appeal within a period of eight weeks from 14.09.2026.

This Appellate Tribunal, in compliance of the direction of Hon’ble High Court, decided the misc. applications on 31.08.2026.

4. On last date of hearing dated 06.10.2026, the Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers submitted that the Appellants/Borrowers had filed another Special Civil Application No. 13774/2026 in Gujrat High Court challenging the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Appellate Tribunal.

Similarly, the Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser also submitted that Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser has also filed a Writ Petition No. 12258/2026 before Hon’ble High Court of Bombay challenging the same order dated 31.08.2026 passed by the Appellate Tribunal. When this case was being heard on 06.10.2026 by this Appellate Tribunal in compliance of the directions by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat, the Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers and Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser requested this Appellate Tribunal to await the order of stay, if any passed by the Hon’ble High Courts, in the respective Special Civil Applications and Writ Petitions.

5. On query from this Appellate Tribunal, the Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers would submit that the Hon’ble High Court of

Gujrat has not passed any order in the Special Civil Application No. 13774/2026 filed by Appellants/Borrowers, thereby staying the hearing of this Appeal and now the next date is fixed on 15.12.2026.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser would submit that, similarly there is no stay order on the hearing of this Appeal by the High Court of Bombay in his Writ Petition No. 12258/2026.

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser would further submit that he has moved a praecipe on 03.11.2026 for the withdrawal of his writ petition no. 12258/2026 and the same is listed on 05.11.2026.

7. The Counsel present for the hearing would submit that, as there is no stay on the hearing of this Appeal by Hon’ble High Courts of Gujrat and Bombay, therefore, the previous order passed by the High Court of Gujrat in Special Civil Application No. 10584/2026 dated 03.08.2026 directing this Appellate Tribunal to decide the present appeal within eight weeks from 14.09.2026 has to be complied with.

8. The Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers would submit that he has filed the application for amendment I.A. No. 658/2026 for incorporating additional paragraphs and prayer clause C , D & E, in view of the observations made in para 21 of the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Appellate Tribunal.

9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Borrowers would submit that this amendment is necessitated as there is an observation in para 21 of the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by this Appellate Tribunal on I.A. No. 495/2026 of Appellants/Borrowers that the prayer that Respondent No. 1/Bank is solely liable for the loss, disappearance and misappropriation of plant’s machinery etc. is the matter of final nature and can not be granted by way of the interim application, similarly, the relief of seeking the payment of damages also can not be decided by way of the interim application.

10. Per Contra, the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1/Bank , Respondent No. 2 & 3/Auction Purchasers would submit that the Appellants/Borrowers have supplied the copy of this application only yesterday night however, they are ready to argue the application without filing the formal reply thereto. The Counsel for Respondent No. 1 would submit that the issue of awarding the compensation for any alleged damages to the machinery is not within the jurisdiction of this Appellate Tribunal and if at all the Appellants/Borrowers, in his perception, has any right then that right can be espoused only in the Civil Court.

11. The Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3/Auction Purchasers would adopt the arguments of the Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank.

12. Considered and perused the record.

Observations :

13. In the considered view of this Appellate Tribunal no amendment can be allowed on the basis of any observations made by the Appellate Tribunal in its previous order passed in the Appeal. Therefore, the application is rejected.

14. Heard Appellants/Borrowers on his Appeal at length.

15. The arguments could not be concluded due to paucity of time.

16. The Learned Counsel for the parties would jointly submit that Respondent No. 2/Auction Purchaser shall make appropriate application before Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat for extension of time as complete hearing of the appeal by this Appellate Tribunal is likely to take time.

17. On the request of the Ld. Counsel for parties, list the matter on 26.11.2026 for hearing. Sd/- Chairperson 04.11.2026

VKC-01