Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. Bank of India and 3 Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act Section 18. Disposed of urgency application as infructuous. Allowed waiver application where 50% dues deposited. Directing service on delay and stay applications.
What did the court decide?
Waiver application allowed; urgency application disposed as infructuous; notices issued on delay and stay applications.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 902/2022 Date: 12.12.2022
Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs. Bank of India & Ors.
Present: Shri V. K. Chaudhary, counsel for the appellant, Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the respondent-Bank,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the final order dated 27.09.2022 passed by the DRT, Ranchi in S.A. No. 09/2018.
The report of the Registrar shows that the I.A. No. 588/2022 being urgency application, I.A. No. 590/2022 being waiver application, I.A. No. 589/2022 being stay application and I.A. No. 591/2022 being delay condonation application are pending consideration.
The matter has been taken-up today, therefore, the urgency application being I.A. No. 588/2022 has become infructuous and is disposed off as such.
The report of the Registrar records that as per e-auction notice dated 20.10.2017, the dues of the Bank was shown to be Rs. 17.62 lacs plus interest and it has been mentioned that the appellant has deposited Rs. 9.00 lacs with the respondent-Bank.
Since more than 50% of the amount due has been deposited by the appellant, therefore, no further amount is required to be deposited towards pre-deposit. Accordingly, the waiver application is allowed.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the urgency application remains pending or becomes infructuous
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Akhilesh Kumar Singh
- respondent
Bank of India
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
6 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court