Disposed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

DRAT19 Sept 2022MISC APPEAL/111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal challenging an interlocutory order that admitted time-barred amendments. The tribunal held the sub-app challenging limitation and waiver should be disposed of only after the sub-appellant details a reply.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of in limine with a direction to the lower court to consider the plea on limitation and waiver after receiving a detailed reply.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 111/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Bank of Baroda … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

M/s. Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. A.R. Bamne, i/b M/s. A.R. Bamne & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Mr. Rafeeq Peermohideen, i/b Ms. Radhika Chamaria, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 19/09/2022:-

¶9

This is an Appeal filed by the Bank of Baroda challenging the impugned order date 13.05.2021 in Interlocutory Application No. 1263/2021 in S.A. No. 239/2018 on the files of D.R.T.-II, Ahmedabad. This Appeal has been pending for quite some time. The Applicant in the S.A. had sought two amendments one challenging the notice to take possession of the secured assets and the second notice pertains to the sale notice. The Ld. Presiding Officer vide the impugned order allowed both these applications without going into the merits of the contentions raised. Liberty was also granted to the Appellant to file a reply on the S.A with regard to the amended contentions. The amendments have already been carried out. The Appellant is aggrieved by the allowing of the amendment raising the challenging the notice to take over of possession, stating that it could not have been included in the S.A. because the prayer is already barred by limitation and that the Applicant had not

¶10

challenged the same while challenging the other measures.

¶11

After hearing the Ld. Counsel appears on both sides. I am of the opinion that the S.A. itself could be disposed of after giving an opportunity to the Appellant to file a detailed reply raising all contention regarding limitation and waiver and keeping those questions open, the Appeal is disposed of. The Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to consider the plea of limitation and waiver raised in the reply while disposing of the S.A., which shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶12

Hence, Appeal is disposed of.

¶13

Sd/Chairperson

¶14

mks-27

¶15

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Miraj Recyclers Pvt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Axis Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus Messr Jay Textiles and Ors.

Authorised Officer Karad Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited and Anr. versus M/S Laxmi Drycleaners and 2 Ors.

Axis Bank and Anr. versus Ms Radhakrishna Textiles and Ors.

Prakash Balkrushna Parekh versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt.Ltd. versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mst.Pavitra Pradeep Walvekar versus Bank of India & Ors.