Appeal against DRT order allowing Yes Bank pari passu charge on mortgaged property recovery. Court stayed release of auction proceeds to Yes Bank pending appeal decision.
Recovery Officer permitted to auction property but restrained from releasing proceeds to any party until appeal decided.
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.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Appeal No.190/2018 Arising out of O.A.No.281/2015(DRT-II, Delhi)
Kotak Mahindra Bank Vs
Hindon River Mills Ltd. & Ors.
17.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. A. K. Mata, Ld. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.D. Dobhal and Mr.Shikhar Kumar, Ld. counsel for appellant
Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Ld. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Ld. counsel for respondent no.1
Ms. Shreshtha Mathur, Ld. counsel for respondents 2 and 3
Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Ld. counsel for respondent no.5
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
I.A. No.622/2022
The learned counsel for the appellant/applicant states that the learned DRT vide its impugned final order has ordered that respondent Yes Bank (defendant no.5 in the O.A) has pari passu charge with the appellant bank and would have priority of recovery of its dues from the remaining mortgaged property. This order is under challenge before this Tribunal in the present appeal. Learned counsel further states that proceedings are going on before the learned Recovery Officer in the R.C. issued by the DRT in the appellant’s O.A. and the learned Recovery Officer is going to auction the mortgaged property. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that if any amount is released to Yes Bank at this stage, it will cause great harm and prejudice to the appellant. He requests that the Recovery Officer may be permitted to proceed with the auction, but he may be restrained from releasing the proceeds of auction to Yes Bank till the appeal is decided by this Tribunal.
Learned counsel for the respondent Yes Bank, on the other hand, states against the same impugned order he has also filed an appeal (I.A. No.319/2018), praying for distribution of the amount of Rs152 cores and odd realized by the appellant as compensation amount from respondents 7 & 8 [NHAI and Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition)] amongst appellant and Yes Bank, claiming
-: 2 :-
pari passu charge on the said amount, in addition to its claim for auction proceeds of the mortgaged property.
Heard. In view of above, let the Recovery Officer proceed with the auction of the property, but he will not release the auction proceeds to anyone until the present appeal is decided.
Application stands disposed of.
List the appeal for 02.02.2023 for final arguments.
(CHAIRPERSON)
-pk
2 issues framed by the court
whether the impugned order regarding pari passu charge between appellant and Yes Bank can be stayed.
whether the Recovery Officer is restrained from releasing auction proceeds to any party pending the appeal.
Kotak Mahindra Bank
Hindon River Mills Ltd.
Yes Bank
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
22 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
