Disposed

M/S. Pearl Opticals Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Limited

DRAT28 Oct 2022REGULAR APPEAL/302/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order declining stay in a Third Party Application regarding S.A. No. 234/2016. Tribunal disposed of appeal, directing DRTR to expedite S.A. hearing and decide tenancy and appropriation claims within two months.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed. Directions to DRT to dispose of S.A. No. 234/2016 within two months, deciding tenancy claims and bank's right to appropriate proceeds.

M/S. Pearl Opticals Ltd. versus Indusind Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal No. 302/2016

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Pearl Opticals Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Indusind Bank Ltd & Ors.

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

Mr Alok Mishra, Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

Ms Selvi Laxman, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mr K.D. Shukla, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶10

Ms Aarti Suvarna, Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and 6.

¶11

Mr Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Auction Purchaser.

¶12

-: Order dated: 28/10/2022:-

¶13

This is an Appeal preferred by the third party who claims to be a tenant in the property which is the subject matter of the S.A. No. 234/2016 on files of Debts Recovery Tribunal No. I, Mumbai. The order dated 06.12.2016 in I.A. No. 586/2016 declining the granting of a stay to the Applicant stands challenged. On prima facie consideration, the Ld. Presiding Officer found that the Appellant is not entitled to stay and therefore, refused to grant a stay of the e-auction which was scheduled to be conducted.

¶14

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank as well as the auction purchaser that the sale has already taken place and

¶15

the possession has been handed over to the auction purchaser and the sale certificate has been registered in his name. However, because of the status-quo order that has been passed by this Tribunal, the sale proceeds in the deposit have not been withdrawn by the Bank and therefore, an application was also filed by the Bank for vacating the status-quo order so as to enable the Bank to appropriate the amount towards the account.

¶16

On hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing on both sides for some time, I consider the S.A. to be of the year 2015. It would only be appropriate that the S.A. itself be disposed of because the contentions regarding the validity of the tenancy right raised by the Appellant will have to be decided by the D.R.T.

¶17

Under the circumstances, I am disposing of the Appeal with a direction to the D.R.T. to dispose of the S.A. No. 234/2016 as expeditiously as possible untrammelled by whatever is observed in the impugned order regarding the prima facie findings pertinent to the tenancy right by the Appellant. The pleadings shall be completed in S.A. as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month and the S.A. itself shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the receipt of the order of this Tribunal. The claim of the Respondent Bank to appropriate the sale proceeds shall also be determined in the S.A. by the D.R.T. leaving open all the contentions raised.

¶18

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 5 & 6 across the bar that Respondent No. 5 & 6 has also filed an application under Sec. 19(25) of the RDB Act. The same shall also be considered by the D.R.T. while disposing of the S.A. The application filed under Sec.

¶19

19(25) in the O.A. shall also be disposed of. All the questions are left open to be decided by the D.R.T.

¶20

The status quo as of date shall be maintained till the disposal of the S.A.

¶21

With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

mks-19

M/S. Pearl Opticals Ltd. v. Indusind Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Pearl Opticals Ltd. v. Indusind 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashwin Mankeshwar versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs Kashmira, d/o Shri Mohan Nihalani

Axis Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus Messr Jay Textiles and Ors.

V Hotels Limited versus Asset Reconstruction Co.(I) Ltd. & Ors.

Shri Siddhi Vinayak Traders versus The Maharashtra State Co-op Ltd. & Ors.

Shri Siddhi Vinayak Traders versus The Maharashtra State Co-op Ltd. & Ors.