[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shri Prakash S/O Narayandas Rathi vs Authorised Officer, Sicom Ltd., Mumbai ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2026:BHC-NAG:5523-DB
1 wp509.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.509/2016
Shri Prakash s/o Narayandas Rathi,
aged 48 years, Occ. Business,
All r/o Trimurti Sadan, House No.232/22,
Old Bagadganj Layout, Nagpur. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. Authorised Officer,
SICOM Ltd., A company incorporated
under Companies Act, 1956, having its
office at solitaire corporate park,
building no.4, 6th Floor, Guru Hargovindji
Road, (Andheri - Ghatkopar Link Road),
Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
2. Shri Kamal Shivkishan Agrawal,
aged about 40 years, Occ. Business,
r/o Deshpande Layout, Central Avenue,
Wardhaman Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Debt Recovery Tribunal,
CGO Complex "B" Wing, Seminary Hills,
Opp. T.V. Tower, Nagpur - 440 001,
through it's Registrar. ...RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. Anilkumar Shankarlal, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. M. A. Lapalikar, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. S. V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 08.04.2026
JUDGMENT (Per: Anil L. Pansare, J.)
Petitioner is seeking following substantive reliefs:
"a) Call for the records of the M.A. No.43/2012 from
the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur decided on
1.5.2015 at annex XII as well as the Appeal bearing
No.186/2015 pending before the Hon'ble D.R.A.T.
Mumbai alongwith orders dated 19.8.2015 at Annexure
XVII passed in M.A. No.493/2015 and M.A.No.394/2015.
2 wp509.16.odt
b) Peruse the order passed M.A.No.43/2012 passed by
Hon'ble Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur dated 1.5.2015 at
annex XII and orders dated 19.8.2015 at annex XVII
passed in M.A.No.493/2015 and M.A.No.394/2015 passed
by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
alongwith the other material placed on record and be
pleased to allow the said application seeking permission
for condonation of delay.
c) Stay the operation of the Oder dt.1.5.2015 in
M.A.No.43/2012 passed by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery
Tribunal dated 1.5.2015 at annex XII and orders dated
19.8.2015 at annex XVII passed in M.A.No.493/2015 and
M.A.No. 394/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai and direct the respondent
No.1 to maintain Status quo in respect of the action more
particularly from confirming the sale in respect of
residential property in favour of the respondent no.2 more
particularly till the decision of the W.P."
2. As could be seen, the petitioner has referred to order dated
01.05.2015, passed by Debt Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur ("DRT"), in
Misc. Application No.43/2012. By the said application, the petitioner
requested the DRT to condone the delay in filing appeal against order
passed by District Magistrate under Section 13 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002. The DRT did not find merit in the application and
accordingly rejected the same. The petitioner approached the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal ("DRAT") by filing appeal, being Appeal
No.136/2015, challenging order dated 01.05.2015, passed by the DRT.
The appeal is still pending.
3. The petitioner filed two applications, being M.A.
No.493/2015 and M.A. No.394/2015 in Appeal No.186/2015. M.A.
No.493/2015 was filed seeking stay to the order passed by the DRT and
3 wp509.16.odt
M.A. No.394/2015 was filed seeking waiver of deposit. The DRAT, vide
order dated 19.08.2015, refused to grant stay. It, however, allowed the
other application directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount
due within six weeks from the date of the order with a consequential
order that if the amount is not deposited within stipulated time, the
waiver petition shall stand dismissed. The DRAT also ordered that such
failure will result in dismissal of appeal as well.
4. Perusal of prayers referred to above indicate that the
petitioner is not seeking to quash and set aside the order dated
19.08.2015 passed in M.A.No.493/2015 and M.A.No.394/2014. In that
sense, we find that the petitioner has not effectively assailed the order
dated 19.08.2015. What remains is the prayer seeking to condone delay
in filing appeal.
5. The instant petition was first listed on 01.02.2016 when
notices were issued to respondents. Thereafter, petition was listed on
04.07.2017, when the Court was pleased to issue Rule. It appears from
both the orders that either the petitioner did not press for interim relief
or the same was not granted. It is so because both the orders are
completely silent about the request made by the petitioner to stay the
order dated 19.08.2015 passed by DRAT in M.A. No.493/2015 and
M.A.No.394/2015. Having not done so, the petitioner was under
obligation to deposit 50% of the amount as directed by the DRAT. It is
nobody's case, at least counsel for petitioner has not apprised us of
depositing the said amount. That being so, the waiver petition so also
4 wp509.16.odt
the appeal filed by petitioner before the DRAT stood dismissed in terms
of the order dated 19.08.2015. In that sense, order dated 01.05.2015
passed by the DRT refusing to condone the delay has attained finality.
6. That being so, the petitioner now cannot pursue before us
the relief of condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the DRT.
7. Argument is that the DRAT committed error of law in
directing the petitioner to deposit the amount without entertaining the
challenge to the order passed by the DRT refusing to condone the delay.
Counsel for petitioner submits that until the delay is condoned, the
question of depositing the amount in terms of Section 18 would not
arise. It is only when the matter is to be heard on merit, said course is
available.
8. In support, he has relied upon judgments in Gadekar
Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank through its Authorised
Officer [2024 Supreme (Bom) 845], Sunshine Builders and Developers
Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. through Branch Manager [2025 Supreme (SC)
156] and C. Prabhakar Rao Vs. Sama Mahipal Reddy [2025 Supreme
(SC) 444].
9. We need not go into details of the judgments as there is
fundamental flaw in the approach of the petitioner. The aforesaid plea,
according to us, was available to the petitioner had the appeal been
pending before the DRAT. As noted earlier, the petitioner neither
prayed to stay order dated 19.08.2015 nor did he deposit the amount in
terms of the said order. The consequence of the default is that Appeal
5 wp509.16.odt
No.135/2015 stood dismissed. The order dated 19.08.2015 is not
effectively assailed before this Court, only stay to order is sought, which
is not granted till date. The end result is that the appeal filed before the
DRAT stood dismissed. Therefore, the order dated 19.08.2015 cannot
be now stayed.
10. The petitioner is aware of such status and that appears to us
a precise reason why the prayers are vaguely worded.
11. We may note here that the DRT and DRAT both have
blamed the petitioner of adopting the delaying tactics. The present
petition appears to us to be extended version of the said tactics. Be that
as it may, considering the status as noted above, since the appeal itself
stood dismissed, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in
filing application under Section 17 before the DRT. In fact, the delay
cannot be now condoned.
12. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
No order as to costs.
(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
kahale
