Allowed

Namburi Malakondala Rao v. Indian Bank

DRAT8 Jul 2022MISC APPEAL/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Mumbai allowed an appeal against an order grilling an E-Auction scheduled by the DRT, Nagpur. The Tribunal noted the confirmation of sale was subject to the pending main Securitisation Application and other pending miscellaneous applications were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is disposed of. Grounds urged will be considered in the main Securitisation Application as expeditiously as possible.

Namburi Malakondala Rao versus Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 85/2022

¶3

Between Namburi Malakondala Rao … Appellant/s V/s. Indian Bank & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶4

Mr. Anil Kumar along with Mr. Meghnath Navlani, Advocate for Appellant.

¶5

Mr. Prakash Shjinde along with Mr. Bhavesh Poojari and Mr. Dhrumil Shah, i/b M/s. MDP Partners, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶6

-: Order dated: 08/07/2022 :-

¶7

The Appellant who is the auction purchaser is aggrieved by the interlocutory impugned order of the Ld. Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur, (the D.R.T. for short) in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 876/2022 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 213/2022 which was for stalling E-Auction scheduled to take place on 27.06.2022.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for Appellant and the Respondent Bank, the Ld. P.O. came to the conclusion that E- Auction cannot be stalled for the reasons stated in the impugned order. It was further stated that the I.A. No. 876/2022 is disposed of with the condition that confirmation of the sale would be subject to the outcome of the S.A which was filed for challenging the action of the Bank in not accepting the bid amount of the Appellant. The main S.A. is yet to be decided and the same is still pending before the D.R.T., Nagpur.

¶9

¶10

The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that reasons for the rejection of interim reliefs are not given in the impugned order. I find that the S.A. was also filed for stalling the sale and detailed reasons regarding rejection of interim reliefs cannot be given in the I.A. The interim orders are made on prima facie finding, therefore, the Ld. P.O. was right in dismissing the application.

¶11

However, the grounds which have been urged by the Appellant shall be considered while hearing the main S.A. and detailed order shall be passed by the Ld. P.O. in the S.A. which shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The ultimate confirmation of the E-Auction which had taken place will be subject to the result of the S.A.

¶12

With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶13

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

¶14

Sd/Chairperson

¶15

dpj-7

¶16

Namburi Malakondala Rao v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namburi Malakondala Rao v. Indian Bank

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

Shrenik Himmatlal Mehta versus Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.

Fenil Bharatbhai Shah versus Bank of India

Maliram Makharia Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

Chandravadan Pranlal Kapadia & Ors. versus Bank of India & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus The Icici Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Dena Bank versus The Icici Bank Ltd. & Ors.