Dismissed

Paresh Shantilal Shah v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRAT20 Dec 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed an appeal for non-compliance regarding a pre-deposit order. However, it granted a direction for the respondent to assist the appellant in removing non-secured personal belongings from the property. The court also ordered the correction of clerical mistakes in a previous order.

What did the court decide?

The respondent is directed to enable the Appellant to remove personal belongings from the property. Clerical corrections were ordered.

Paresh Shantilal Shah versus Edelweiss Asset… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal on Diary No. 505/2021

¶3

Between

¶4

Paresh Shantilal Shah … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & …Respondent/s Anr.

¶6

Mr Rafeeq Peermohideen, i/b Mr Alok Mishra, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Mr Rohit Gupta along with Mr D. U. Chavrasia & Ms Khushbhoo Soni, i/b M/s. M.K. Ambalal & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶8

-: Order dated: 20/12/2022:-

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe dated 07.12.2022 filed by Respondent No. 1, seeking urgent relief.

¶10

The Appellant has not complied with the order of this Tribunal dated 28.11.2022 to make the pre-deposit. Hence the Appeal would stand dismissed.

¶11

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the possession has been taken over by the Respondent and that the personal belongings of the Appellant are lying in the property.

¶12

The Respondent is directed to do whatever is necessary so as to enable the Appellant to remove his personal belonging which does not form part of the secured assets, from the property.

¶13

¶14

The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has filed Praecipe for speaking to the minutes with regard to the order passed on 28.11.2022 regarding some corrections to be carried out in the order.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Appellant was also heard and accordingly, the following typing mistakes pointed out are ordered to be corrected..

¶16

In Paragraph No. 4 after the word “the second Respondent Company”, the following shall be added, “as submitted by the Ld. counsel for the Appellant”.

¶17

In Paragraph No.11, instead of “On deposit of the amount ............shall not create any third-party interest”, the same shall be corrected as “ On the deposit of the amount as directed, there shall be a stay of further Sarfaesi measures with regard to the secured assets”.

¶18

Certified copies, if already issued to the parties shall be recalled, and corrected copies be issued. The order which has already been uploaded on the website of the office shall also be corrected accordingly.

¶19

Chairperson

¶20

psa-19

¶21

Paresh Shantilal Shah v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paresh Shantilal Shah v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Allahabad Bank & Ors. versus Sumit Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

Dilip Damodar Patil versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

Smt Mamatha R versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.

The Nasik Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited versus Raka Agro Agencies and Anr.

Sns Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd.

M/S. Yours Ethnic Foods Pvt. Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited