Appellant sought stay on recovery proceedings against secured assets. Deputy Chairperson found no prima facie case for interference. Granted time to Respondent Bank for reply; no interim order passed.
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
Misc. Appeal No. 25/2022
Between
Mrs. Sandhya Rajendra Patel … Appellant/s V/s. Karnataka Bank Ltd …Respondent/s
Ms. Arundati. A. Walavalkar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. K. S. Shetty, Advocate for Respondent Bank.
-: Order dated : 15/06/2022 :-
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe dated 11.06.2022 filed by Appellant for seeking urgent relief.
On going through the application I.A. No.211/2022 for stay of all further proceedings pertaining to the Recovery Proceeding against the secured assets and the order impugned, prima facie, I don’t find anything to interfere in that order.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank seeks time for filing reply on the application for stay.
Reply, if any, shall be filed within two weeks.
No interim order is called for. The application shall be posted for hearing after filing the reply with advance copy to the other side. Post on 11.07.2022 for hearing.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-4
1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any interim relief by way of stay on recovery proceedings against secured assets is necessary based on prima facie view.
Mrs. Sandhya Rajendra Patel
Karnataka Bank Ltd
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
