Disposed

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde v. the Authorised Office, Muslim Co-Operative Bank

DRAT11 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal filed by a third-party licensee operating a bar and lodging house on secured assets, the Tribunal granted an interim arrangement allowing time for parties to negotiate an amicable settlement regarding possession and business continuity.

What did the court decide?

Interim order granted allowing time for parties to negotiate an amicable settlement; status quo maintained till next hearing.

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde versus the Authorised Office, Muslim Co-Operative… — Insurance | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal No. 55/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

The Authorized Office, Muslim Co-Operative … Respondent/s Bank Ltd.

¶6

Mr. Tushad Kakalia, i/b Mr. Uttam Rane, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Respondent No.1, 2 & 4

¶8

-: Order dated: 11/08/2022:-

¶9

The Appellant is a third-party licensee who was running a Bar and Lodging House in the subject property which was secured assets with the Respondent Co-operative Bank and was put for sale and purchased by the secured creditor itself. The possession has been taken over and the Appellant challenged the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. The Appellant is keen on continuing the business which he was conducting under a license agreement with the borrower. His articles are still lying inside the property, which have not yet been removed. He is, therefore, negotiating with the Respondent Bank for an amicable settlement in the matter.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks time for negotiations and the counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that an Appellant is free to approach the Bank directly for the negotiations.

¶11

¶12

In view of the above, I find that an opportunity has to be granted to the Appellant to negotiate the matter amicably so that the dispute can be resolved. The Respondent Bank is also expected to be receptive to the offers made by the Appellant and explore possibilities of a settlement.

¶13

This tribunal has not gone into the merits of the contentions in dispute. This order is being made purely as the interim arrangement to which the parties have acceded. The interim order regarding the status quo shall continue till the next date of hearing.

¶14

Post on 19.09.2022 for reporting settlement/hearing.

¶15

Chairperson

¶16

dpj-19

¶17

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde v. the Authorised Office, Muslim Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde v. the Authorised Office, Muslim Co-Operative 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

State Bank of India versus Viraj Polyplast Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Mukhtar Alam Shaikh versus Allahabad Bank & Anr.

M/s Anand Poultry Farm & Anr. versus Bank of India & Ors.

Mr. Anand Jayant More versus Bank of India & Ors.

Excel Retail Spaces versus Bank of Baroda