SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 56

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
DRAT Mumbai
PEAGASUS ASSETS RECONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD – Appellant
Versus
Daya Builders – Respondent
Transfer Petition No. 02/2026 | S.A. No. 106/2024



Administrative burdens and additional charges of a Presiding Officer do not excuse the failure to comply with a time-bound judicial direction for disposing of an interim application without a formal request for an extension of time.

Headnote:The matter involves a Transfer Petition filed by an asset reconstruction company seeking the transfer of a Securitisation Application from DRT-I, Mumbai, to another tribunal. The petitioner contended that a stay application (I.A. No. 2354/2025) remained undisposed despite a previous direction from the Appellate Tribunal to resolve it by 07.01.2026, citing the Presiding Officer's additional charge of another tribunal as the reason for repeated adjournments. The primary issue is whether the failure of the lower tribunal to comply with a time-bound direction for disposing of an interim application justifies a transfer of the case. The court observed that while the Presiding Officer was managing additional charges, no formal request for an extension of time was submitted to the Appellate Tribunal to justify the delay in disposing of the stay application. Therefore, this Tribunal directs the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Mumbai to dispose of I.A. No.2357/2025 on or before 11.02.2026, failing to pass the order would be viewed seriously.

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioner/Appellant ARC seeking urgent relief.

This Transfer Application is filed for transferring Securitisation Application No. 106/2024 from DRT-I, Mumbai, to any other DRT.

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant that the Learned Presiding Officer passed an order in the above case on 28.11.2025 as follows.

"Both sides represented. I.A. No. 2354 of 2025 is to be heard.

The respondent/bank urges that it should be heard today before any orders are passed in this matter.

This Tribunal is now placed with full additional charge of DRT-III wherein so many urgent matters of urgent nature are to be attended to each day. Many cases which are to be disposed off on urgent manner, on directions of expedite disposal by Hon'ble High Court and Hon ble DRAT which include a matter of the Ld. counsel for the respondent also, are also to be attended, some of which are pending today in both this Tribunal and DRT-III. The said matter so directed to be disposed off by Hon'ble High Court and Hon ble DRAT cannot be overlooked for hearing this matter today.

So the present petition is posted for hearing to 23.01.2026. Both sides to file argument notes before the next hearing date as 23.01.2026. Both sides to maintain the status quo till I.A. No. 2354 of 2025 is disposed off.»

Challenging this order, this Appeal is filed. This Tribunal, on 23.12.2025, without going into the merits of this case, and finding that the status quo order was passed without assigning any reason, directed the Learned Presiding Officer to dispose the Stay Application in I.A. No. 2354/2025 on or before 07.01.2026 by listing the matter.

Petitioner/Appellant informed that the I.A. No.2354/2025 is not disposed till date. When the matter was listed for hearing on 02.01.2026, it was ordered to be listed on 06.01.2026 for hearing. Meanwhile, parties were directed to submit their written notes. On 06.01.2026, it appears that only the Applicant filed argument notes. The Respondent had not filed argument notes. There was a direction to the parties to file argument notes and also a direction to address this Tribunal for extension of time and the matter was adjourned to 08.01.2026. On 08.01.2026, the Learned Counsel for Respondent filed argument notes and the matter was adjourned to 12.01.2026. On 12.01.2026, it was ordered to be listed on 13.01.2026 for hearing. On 13.01.2026, Learned Counsel for Applicant argued and the matter was adjourned for further hearing on 19.01.2026. On 19.01.2026, it was recorded that the Tribunal is having additional charge of DRT-III, Mumbai, and was taking up only urgent praecipe matters, time-bound matters and expeditious matters of both DRTs and expeditious matters directed by the Honble High Court are also listed on that day. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 21.01.2026. On 21.01.2026, t was recorded that two High Court expeditious matters are to be attended along with the cases of DRT-III, Mumbai. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 27.01.2026. On 27.01.2026, the Learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was posted to 05.02.2026. In the said background, this Transfer Application is filed.

anu

Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent submitted that as directed by the Learned Presiding Officer, the Applicant filed written notes on 06.01.2026, but the Respondent before the Tribunal has not filed the written notes. Then, on 13.01.2026, Applicant in I.A. argued the matter and on request of Respondent, the matter was adjourned to 19.01.2026.

It is further submitted that the DRT-III, Mumbai, also holds charge of DRT -I, Mumbai, and it is practically difficult to find time to dispose of the matters. Whatever the facts leading to the adjournment of this I.A. No. 2354/2025, this Tribunal had not directed the Learned Presiding Officer to dispose of the main S.A. No. 106/2024. What was dire

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top