DRAT Mumbai Rejects Bank Of Maharashtra's Appeal Over Failure To File Certified Copy Of The DRT Order

The Mumbai Bench of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has dismissed Bank of Maharashtra's appeal against a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order directing restoration of possession of mortgaged property to borrowers after holding that the appeal was not maintainable because the bank failed to file the certified copy of the impugned order.

Chairperson Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma observed that, in the absence of the certified copy of the detailed DRT order, the appeal could not be treated as a valid appeal.

The tribunal held, “In view of the facts of the case and law discussed above, this Appellate Tribunal is of the considered view that in absence of the certified copy of the detailed order dated 02.03.2026, the present Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 381/2026 is liable to be rejected as there no appeal in the eyes of law.”

The appeal arose from an order of DRT-III, Mumbai directing the bank to restore possession of mortgaged property to M/s Kamdar Plastic and others.

The borrowers had moved the DRT to restrain the bank from taking physical possession of the secured asset. After hearing the application on February 9, 2026, the DRT reserved its order for February 12 because there was no time left to pronounce it that day.

The bank nevertheless took possession of the property on the evening of February 9. When the matter came up on February 12, the borrowers informed the DRT that possession had already been taken. They then sought restoration of possession.

The DRT gave the bank several opportunities to file objections to the restoration application. However, no reply was filed before the application was allowed on March 2, 2026. The DRT directed the bank to restore possession within two weeks.

Before the appellate tribunal, the bank argued that the DRT's written order dated February 9 did not restrain it from taking possession. It contended that oral directions had no legal force and that it acted only after verifying that no written stay had been granted.

The borrowers opposed the appeal on the ground that the bank had filed only the certified copy of the one-page order sheet and not the certified copy of the detailed six-page order. They also argued that the bank had repeatedly failed to file objections before the DRT despite being granted several opportunities.

The tribunal noted that no objections had been filed on February 19, February 27 or even before the DRT passed the restoration order on March 2. It observed that there was no rebuttal to the allegations made in the restoration application.

The tribunal also found fault with the bank's conduct in taking possession after the DRT had reserved its order.

It observed, “This shows the malafide on the part of the Appellant/Bank. As observed above, when judgment was reserved by judicial authority to be pronounced on 12.02.2026, then no party to the case in supposed to subvert the process of dispensation of justice to the utter shock to the other party and surprise to that judicial/quasi-judicial authority.”

The tribunal further observed that even without any oral undertaking, the bank should have waited until the DRT pronounced its reserved order on February 12 instead of taking possession in the meantime.

Examining the maintainability of the appeal, the tribunal noted that the certified copy of the detailed DRT order was neither filed with the memorandum of appeal nor produced even by the date of final arguments.

It referred to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, which require every appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy of the impugned order. The tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Anglewoods Apartments Allottees Association v. M. Lalitha on the mandatory nature of that requirement.

Holding that the defect went to the root of the proceedings, the tribunal dismissed the appeal.

For Appellant Bank: Charles De'Souza, along with Mr. Sachin Patil, Ms. Nameeta Malvankar i/b Nitesh Agarwal

For Respondents: Puneet Gogad, along with Ms Sneha Rane & Ms Priti B. i/b Nemi Bhavsar