Dinesh Rikabchand Kothari v. State Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal stayed physical possession by the respondent bank pending consideration of the appellant's settlement proposal. A fifteen-day notice is required before any possession action. Hearing on the waiver of predeposit was reserved for 12.10.2022.
What did the court decide?
Order issued prohibiting possession without 15 days' notice; hearing on predeposit waiver fixed for 12.10.2022.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 236/2022 (WoD)
In Appeal on Diary No. 427/2022
Between
Shri. Dinesh Rikabchand Kothari … Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India … Respondent/s
Ms Bhagyashree A. Keny, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms Merlyn V. Vasudeo nee Monterio, Advocate for Respondent. Mr Subhash S., Chief Manager of Respondent present in person.
-: Order dated: 25/08/2022:-
The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that the borrower has approached the Bank for an amicable settlement which is under examination and that a submission has already been made before the D.R.T. and the Bank has agreed that physical possession would be taken only after a decision on the settlement proposal is taken.
Under these circumstances, I find that an opportunity has to be granted to the borrower to offer a settlement which the Bank shall favourably considered. The application for waiver of predeposit shall be heard after that
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether physical possession can be taken by the bank before hearing the borrower's settlement proposal.
Whether the DRAT should grant a stay on possession pending consideration of the waiver of predeposit application.
Whether the bank needs to serve notice before taking physical possession of the mortgaged property.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Shri. Dinesh Rikabchand Kothari
- respondent
State Bank of India
Coram
Ashok Menon
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
5 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court