Allowed

Rupesh Nandkumar Nadkar and Anr. v. Idbi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2023WP/3291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an impugned DRT order rejecting a stay application in an appeal. The court directed the DRT to dispose of the appeal within four weeks and ordered protection of the petitioners' possession until then, noting that the rejection caused prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20 February 2023 is quashed; Appeal No.5 of 2022 to be disposed by DRT within four weeks; Petitioners' possession protected on condition not to create third party rights or pa

Rupesh Nandkumar Nadkar and Anr. Vs Idbi Bank… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

41-WP-3291-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3291 OF 2023

¶4

Rupesh Nandkumar Nadkar & Anr.)...Petitioners
 V/s.
IDBI Bank Ltd. And Another)...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Rajesh Shethia, Mr. Chetan Shah, Ms.Chetna Dharod,
Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mrs. Shruti D. Vyas, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent
No.3-State.

¶7

Mr.A.K.Mishra a/w. Mr. Siddharth Kakka i/b. Orbit Law
Services, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 27 MARCH 2023

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

2Considering the order that is proposed to be passed, the
presence of Respondent no.1 i.e. the secured creditor would
suffice and it is not necessary to issue notice to Respondents

¶13

AVK 1/3

¶14

ARTI VILAS KHATATE Digitally signed by ARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2023.03.28 15:34:26 +0530

¶15

41-WP-3291-2023.doc

¶16

no.2 and 3 – the original borrower and the State of
Maharashtra.

¶17

3The Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the
Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Appeal No.5 of 2022 on 20
February 2023 rejecting the application for stay in the Appeal
and adjourning the Appeal to 10 August 2023.

¶18

4The learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that
property was purchased subsequent to the agreement by the
original borrower with the bank and the DRT recorded this
and rejected the stay. According to the Petitioners, the
Petitioners have various other grounds to urge and have also
pleaded fraud.

¶19

5Be that as it may, we do not find the reasoning in the
impugned order satisfactory, more particularly, since not
granting interim order would make the Appeal infructuous and
Petitioners would be dispossessed. The order rejecting interim
relief should have contained details or that the Appeal should
have been disposed of so that the Petitioners would have
remedy of substantive Appeal before the Appellate Authority.
In these circumstances, both the parties have been prejudiced.

¶20

AVK 2/3

¶21

41-WP-3291-2023.doc

¶22

6According to us, the appropriate course of action would
be to direct the DRT to hear the Appeal in a time bound
period and protect the Petitioners in the meanwhile. The
parties are ad-idem that the Petitioner is currently in possession
of the premises.

¶23

7Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20 February 2023
is quashed and set aside. The Appeal no.5 of 2022 be disposed
of by the DRT within a period of four weeks from the date of
order of this Court reaches it.

¶24

8Till the order is so passed by the DRT, possession of the
Petitioners be protected on a condition that the Petitioners will
not create third party rights or part with possession.

¶25

9We make it clear that the protection is in above
circumstances and shall not be considered as reflection of
merits of the rival contentions and the Appeal will be decided
on its own merits.

¶26

10The Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim Application, if
any, stands disposed of.

¶27

(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

¶28

(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

¶29

AVK 3/3

Rupesh Nandkumar Nadkar and Anr. v. Idbi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupesh Nandkumar Nadkar and Anr. v. Idbi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

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

M/S. Shri Makai Sahakari Shakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors. Vs Central Bank of India Pune Camp Branch and Anr.

Vivek Madan Kavle Vs Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate Mulshi and Ors.

Smt. Ragini Rahul Gulave and Anr. Vs the Authorized Officer Shri Chhatrapati Rajashree Shahau Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Marble and Tiles Association, Pune Vs the Commissioner,Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Padma Motilal Gadia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Anr.

Dbm Educational Foundation Thr Its Authorised Trustee Vs Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd.