The tribunal dismissed an intervention application filed by an auction purchaser as infructuous, noting that the purchaser's rights could be determined in an already pending appeal. The regular appeal was posted for hearing.
Intervention application I.A. No. 94/2020 is dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 94/2020 (Intervention Application)
In
Appeal No. 194/2011
Between
Shri Vitthal Agro Product Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s
Ms. SanjanaGhogare, Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms. Miloni Shah, i/b M/s. Bilawala& Co., Advocate for the Respondent Bank.
-: Order dated: 22/08/2022:-
I. A. No. 94/2020 is filed by the auction purchaser to intervene in this Regular Appeal 194/2011 which arises from the impugned order in S.A. No. 26/2012 on the files of DRT, Pune. The intervener who filed the application has not been appearing for some time.
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties that the intervener had filed a separate application seeking the refund of money which has been deposited in the auction and on the rejection of that application, there is an appeal pending before this Tribunal. The intervener’s rights could very well be determined in that Appeal.
Under the circumstances, I.A.No.94/2020 appears to be infructuous and is, therefore, dismissed.
Pleadings of the regular appeal are complete.
Post the matter on 18.10.2022 for hearing.
mks-5
1
Shri Vitthal Agro Product Pvt. Ltd.
State Bank of India
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
