Gujarat High Court
M/S Lytebrick Build Llp Through Its ... vs Authorized Officer Of Bank Of India on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13351/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13351 of 2025
==========================================================
M/S LYTEBRICK BUILD LLP THROUGH ITS PARTNER HITESH B.
PANCHAL & ORS.
Versus
AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MIHIRKUMAR V PATEL(10112) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR DHAVAL VYAS, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR VISHWAS K SHAH(5364)
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs.
"A. YOUR LORDSHIP be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari or Mandamus and be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 1 bank from taking any actions under SARFAESI Act as well as taking physical possession of properties in question fixed by Court Commissioners, Dholka Ahmedabad on 21.09.2025 or any day thereafter respectively as stated in Annexure-G till the adjudication of Misc. Appeal (D) No.1538 of 2025 in Securitisation Application No.201 of 2025 pending before the Ld. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai by the Ld. Chairperson, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai.
B. Alternatively this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order granting some indulgence Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 11:15:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13351/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined and accommodation to the petitioners so that petitioners in the interregnum period, no coercive steps are taken against the petitioners till the time Misc. Appeal (D) No. 1538 of 2025 adjudication by Ld. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai.
C. During the pendency and till final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain respondent no. 1 bank from taking any further actions under SARFAESI Act qua the petitioners in view of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act dated 26.05.2025 at Annexure- E. D. During the pendency and till final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain respondent no. 1 bank from taking any further actions under SARFAESI Act qua the petitioners in view of order at Annexure-F. E. Be pleased to grant ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer C and D above may be granted F. Be pleased to grant such other and/or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that Miscellaneous Appeal (D) No.1538 of 20205 in S.A. No.201 of 2025 already filed before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai. However, since DRAT, Mumbai charge is with the Chennai Bench, the petitioner is not able to get the listing immediately and the possession of the property if, in the meanwhile, is taken over, then the appeal of the petitioners would become redundant. Learned advocate for the petitioners, therefore, requested this Court to grant some breathing time Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 11:15:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13351/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined so that listing of the appeal before the DRAT, Chennai be attempted and can secure effective hearing.
3. Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr.Dhaval Vyas with learned advocate Mr.Vishwas Shah for the respondent vehemently opposed the present petition stating that the facts are not normal in circumstances. Learned senior advocate Mr.Vyas pointed out that the order passed by the DRT was on 20th September, 2025 and on the next day the petitioners approached DRAT, Mumbai. Learned senior advocate further submitted that after having approached DRAT, Mumbai, the appeal could not be listed because of non-removal of office objections and not because of non- availability of the Bench. Learned senior advocate, therefore, submitted that the petitioners are not vigilant enough to put their efforts for adjudication of their rights by way of appeal and thereby, the present petition seeking intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted.
4. Normally, this Court has shown indulgence in extending breathing time to the litigants for filing of appeal and listing thereof before the In-charge Bench at Chennai.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 11:15:21 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13351/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined However, considering the facts of the case, indisputably, the order dated 20th September, 2025 has been challenged by the petitioners on the next day i.e. 21st September, 2025 and the appeal is registered as Misc. Appeal (D) No.1538 of 2025. However, the same remained under objection without being cleared the same. Thus, in my view, when the appeal has been already filed and the petitioners have not bothered to take care of the appeal by removal of office objections and never shown any vigilance to get the appeal circulated for securing effective hearing till today, this Court would certainly not like to help those litigants who are not acting vigilantly and those are gone in slumber after filing of the appeal. Conduct of the petitioners does not merit any interference.
5. In view of above, the petition is dismissed.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Fri Oct 03 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 04 11:15:21 IST 2025