Disposed

International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. Best Deal Properties Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT23 Sept 2022MISC APPEAL/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Misc. Appeal No. 54/2022, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal by directing the Presiding Officer to decide the pendency Super Appeal No. 269/2012 on merits, uninfluenced by interim observations made during a prior hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Presiding Officer to dispose of S.A. No. 269/2012 on merits uninfluenced by the impugned order, within two months.

International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Best Deal Properties Pvt. Ltd. — DRAT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 54/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

International Asset Reconstruction Company … Appellant/s Pvt. Ltd.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Best Deal Properties Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr. Rohit Gupta along with Mr. Nikhil Rajani, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

Mr. Umesh Shetty along with Mr. Gopalkrishna Naik, i/b M/s. Flavia Legal, Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

-: Order dated: 23/09/2022:-

¶10

S.A. No. 269/2012 on the files of D.R.T. - III, Mumbai is still pending consideration. However, The Appellant is aggrieved by certain observations which were made in the proceedings of the D.R.T recorded on 12.11.2021, which could probably have a bearing on the merits of the Appellant’s case in the S.A. The hearing was not concluded and the S.A. was adjourned on the request made by the Applicant who sought time to go through the ruling filed by counsel for the Respondent. Certain observations are made in paragraphs no.3 and 4. The Tribunal has in this proceedings made itself clear regarding certain points on the merits of the Applicant’s case.

¶11

Ongoing through the entire facts and circumstances, I find that the observations made by the Ld. Presiding Officer is not in the form

¶12

¶13

mks-22

¶14

of the final disposal of the S.A. but considering the anxiety expressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, I dispose of this Appeal with a direction to the Ld. Presiding Officer to dispose of S.A. No. 269/2012 on its merits uninfluenced by whatever has been observed in the impugned order dated 12.11.2021. The contentions raised by both sides are kept open to be considered afresh and S.A. shall be disposed of on merits based on a fresh hearing of the matter by the Ld. Presiding Officer. The issues framed by the D.R.T., are retained, and kept open to be heard and decided in the S.A.

¶15

The S.A. shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible at any rate within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

¶17

International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. Best Deal Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

International Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited v. Best Deal Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Nagpur Beghar Mitra Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Mr C P Ravindranath Menon Liquidator, Bank of Karad(In Liquidator)

Bank of Baroda versus Shri Jayeshbhai Parsottamdas Patel and Ors.

Pratik Kachru Repale versus State Bank of India

Venkatesh Alied Solution Co. versus Bank of India

Dilip Damodar Patil and Ors. versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.