Dismissed

State Bank of India v. Mrs Vijayalaxmi v Ketha & Ors.

DRAT29 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/293/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal filed by a bank challenging an order that kept the limitation issue in a securitization application open. The court held that no purpose would be served by entertaining the appeal and directed the lower tribunal to decide the limitation question expeditively within two months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Direction to the lower tribunal to decide the issue of limitation within two months.

State Bank of India versus Mrs Vijayalaxmi v Ketha & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Appeal No. 293/2013

¶2

Between

¶3

State Bank of India … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

Mrs. Vijayalaxmi V Ketha & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr Dileep S. Paranjpe, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

-: Order dated: 29/08/2022:-

¶7

The Appellant Bank has filed the Appeal challenging the finding of the Ld. P.O., D.R.T.-III, Mumbai in M.A. No. 57/2012 in Securitization Application at Lodging No. 984/2011. The aforesaid M.A. No. 57/2012 was an application for condoning the delay in filing the S.A. On reading the impugned order dated 07.01.2013 it is seen that the question of limitation in filing the S.A. has been kept open and the S.A. was directed to be numbered and notice issued to the Respondent therein. It has this order which stands challenged in this Appeal.

¶8

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant Bank.

¶9

The Respondents were served but none appeared and ultimately were set ex-parte.

¶10

The allegation of the Appellant is that the S.A. challenging Sarfaesi measures initiated by Appellant Bank was not filed before the D.R.T. within the stipulated period of 45 days. This question of limitation or condonation of delay has not been adjudicated and

¶11

¶12

decided by the Ld. P.O. Under the circumstances, I find that the Ld. P.O. will have to be directed to decide on the question of limitation. The fact that the S.A. was ordered to be registered keeping the question of limitation open does not mean that the limitation has been condoned. Hence, I find that no purpose will be served by entertaining the Appeal. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with direction to the Ld. P.O. D.R.T.-III, Mumbai to dispose of the S.A. at Lodging No. 984/2011 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within the period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶13

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶14

Sd/Chairperson

¶15

mks-18

¶16

State Bank of India v. Mrs Vijayalaxmi v Ketha & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs Vijayalaxmi v Ketha & Ors.

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

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd.

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi versus State Bank of India

Shri Vishnukumar S/o Rambilas Modi versus State Bank of India

Sachin Navin Sheregar & Anr. versus a.O., L & T Hsg. Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Gita Navnath Lambhade and Anr. versus A.O. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. & Others

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd.

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &amp;ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi versus State Bank of India

Shri Vishnukumar S/o Rambilas Modi versus State Bank of India

Sachin Navin Sheregar & Anr. versus a.O., L & T Hsg. Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Gita Navnath Lambhade and Anr. versus A.O. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. & Others

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. – Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi versus State Bank of India