Disposed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shree Narmada Aluminum Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Aug 2012WP/1705/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal to decide a pending miscellaneous appeal by the respondent No.1 on its merits, as the Debt Recovery Tribunal's ability to hear an application was impacted by the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the DRAT to decide Misc. Appeal No.60 of 2007 filed by Respondent No.1 on merits after hearing all parties.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs Shree Narmada… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

krs

¶2

wp1705.12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

O. O. C. J.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1705 OF 2012

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited : Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Shree Narmada Aluminum Industries Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents

¶9

Mr.B. Colabawalla with Mr.Rohit Gupta, Mr.D.U.Chaurasia and Ms Tasneem Z. i/b. Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co., for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Vishal Thaker i/b. Anjali Trivedi for respondent nos.1 & 7.

¶11

CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND

¶12

SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : AUGUST 16, 2012.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 7.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the ICICI Bank Ltd. (lender Bank) has assigned the debt due to it from the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner vide Deed of Assignment dated 29.9.2004. Pursuant to the said assignment, the petitioner filed an

1 of 3

krs

wp1705.12

application to be substituted as the applicant in place of ICICI Bank Ltd. The said application was allowed and the petitioner was brought on record vide order below exh.22 passed on 25.1.2007 by the DRT-III, Mumbai.

¶21

The respondent no.1, being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal, being Misc. Appeal No.60/2007 which is pending for decision. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no interim order in the form of stay or injunction has been passed by the DRAT in the said matter and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application, being Interim Application No.278 of 2012 dated 23.2.2012 before the DRT-III for deciding the Original Application of the petitioner on merits. Since this application was rejected by the DRT, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DRAT, Mumbai, wherein the impugned order dated 10.7.2012 came to be passed. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the DRT is not in a position to hear and decide the Original Application filed by the petitioner in view of the pendency of the appeal before the DRAT, direction may be given to the DRAT to decide the Misc. Appeal filed by the respondent no.1, even otherwise it is fixed for hearing on 27.8.2012, by issuing appropriate direction in this regard. These facts are not

¶22

krs

¶23

wp1705.12

¶24

disputed by the respondent no.1.

¶25

In view of the above referred facts and circumstances as well as in the interest of justice, we direct the DRAT to decide Misc. Appeal No.60 of 2007 filed by the respondent no.1 which is fixed for hearing on 27.8.2012 on its own merits, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondents.

¶26

With these directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. It is made

¶27

clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶28

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶29

Sundaresan

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shree Narmada Aluminum Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Shree Narmada Aluminum Industries Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baban Sidram Kamane and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Sidramappa Javalkote and Ors.

Baban Sidram Kamane and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Sidramappa Javalkote and Ors.

Anil Jadhav and Ors. Vs Adishakti Grihnirman Private Ltd., and Ors.

Siddharath Dadu Jadhav Vs Satvashila Mahadu Jadhav and 8 Ors.

Sonu Synfab Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Chairperson, Dbts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Anr.

Shri. Baban Damodar Sadamate Vs Mr. Sanjay Kumar and Anr.