Disposed

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde and Anr. v. the Authorised Officer of Muslim Bank and Ors.

DRAT29 Mar 2022MISC APPEAL/11/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal stayed the impugned orders of the D.R.T., Pune, directing the original Special Appeal to be disposed within three weeks. Status-quo on possession was maintained until the D.R.T. decides the license agreement.

What did the court decide?

Stay on impugned orders; status-quo on possession maintained for three weeks; original Special Appeal to be decided expeditiously.

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde and Anr. versus the Authorised Officer… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI

¶2

Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 11/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Mr. Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

The Authorized Officer, Muslim Co-operative …Respondent/s Bank Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

This Appeal coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Mr. Uttam S. Rane, Advocate for Appellants and Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

-: Order dated : 29/03/2022 :-

¶9

There is no representation for Respondent No.3.

¶10

This Appeal came up for hearing before this Tribunal today and I heard learned counsel appearing for Appellants as well as learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

There are many issues which need to be answered and the prayer in this Appeal is very limited. Specific prayer is that the impugned order dated 24.12.2021 in I.A. No. 758/2021 and I.A. No. 828/2021 in S.A. No. 224/2021 of the D.R.T., Pune, needs to be stalled.

¶12

In this case if this Tribunal goes into the merits of the entire case, and the locus of the Appellants herein regarding a License Agreement which he has set up, then there will be nothing left to be decided by the Tribunal. I do not think there is need to go into merits of the case as of now at the appellate stage. The original S.A. is

¶13

pending before the D.R.T. and the D.R.T. shall take up hearing of the S.A. and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶14

The status-quo regarding possession of the suit property shall be maintained for a period of three weeks and the sale which has already been slated shall take place, subject to the outcome of the S.A. as determined by the D.R.T. under the SARFAESI Act. All issues including License Agreement is kept open for the D.R.T. to be decide.

¶15

The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶16

All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

dpj-11

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde and Anr. v. the Authorised Officer of Muslim Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde and Anr. v. the Authorised Officer of Muslim Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Invent Asset Securitization and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Mr Rishi Anil Aggarwal and Ors.

Sunita Ranjit Shinde versus the Karad Janata Co-Op Bank and Ors.

Union Bank of India versus Mr Naresh N Jain and Ors.

Mrs. Banoobai Mohd. Hussain Ghaswala versus Bank of Baroda

Dena Bank versus M/S Industrial Linings & Ors.

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta versus Capri Global Capital Ltd.