Disposed

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru & Anr. v. Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

DRAT12 May 2022MISC APPEAL/77/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal without deciding its merits, directing the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide Section 44 Subsequent Appeal No. 440/2016 on merits within three months, while maintaining a status quo. Miscellaneous applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to lower tribunal to dispose of subsequent appeal on merits within three months; status quo maintained.

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru & Anr. versus Dombivli Nagari… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 77/2018

¶3

Between Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶4

Mr. T. N. Tripathi, i/b M/s. T. N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶5

Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, i/b Ms. Medha Rane, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶6

-: Order dated : 12/05/2022 :-

¶7

In the impugned order, dated 14.11.2018, of the D.R.T.-III, Mumbai, in which there was a direction to the Appellant herein to deposit a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs on or before 30.11.2018, failing which the interim injunction granted against the Respondent Bank was to stand vacated. Aggrieved by this order, the Applicant in the S.A. has come up on Appeal.

¶8

This Tribunal while considering the application for waiver of pre-deposit u/s 18 (1) the SARFAESI Act, directed the Appellant vide order dated 30.11.2018 in M.A. No.775/2018, to deposit a sum of Rs.19,05,580/- in two tranches and Appellant has deposited the said amount within the stipulated time, and upon deposit of the said amount, order to maintain status-quo was issued. It is also pertinent

¶9

to note that Applicant earlier paid Rs.10 Lakhs to the Bank pursuant to the order dated 16.02.2017 of the D.R.T., and consequent to the impugned order dated 14.11.2018, the Appellant has paid Rs.20 Lakhs to the Bank directly. Written arguments have been filed by the parties before the D.R.T. in S.A. No 440/2016, as submitted by the counsel across the Bar. I find no reasons to consider the merits of the impugned order in this Appeal as S.A. is ripe for disposal. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to direct the D.R.T. dispose of the S.A. itself on its merits since the parties have completed the pleadings.

¶10

Hence, the Appeal is disposed with a direction to D.R.T.-III, Mumbai, to dispose of S.A. No. 440 of 2016 on merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶11

Status-quo directed to be maintained in the order u/s 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act shall continue till disposal of the S.A. on merits.

¶12

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

¶13

Sd/Chairperson

¶14

dpj-13

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru & Anr. v. Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru & Anr. v. Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

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

Spectra Motors Limited versus Icici Bank Ltd.

Prabhu Construction versus Canara Bank

Prabhu Construction versus Canara Bank

Indostar Capital Finance Limited versus Santos Uttam Sawane

Narmada Cars Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Bank of India versus Shri Satish Bhujang Bhandari