Bank of Baroda v. Savitri Devi Automobiles
Case brief
What is this about?
The court listed the appeal on 20.03.2024 for reply regarding a settlement between the Bank and borrowers. The respondent company's counsel claimed directors attempted to usurp property. The Bank argued the company was an outsider with no locus to object. The court directed filing of rejoinders.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Appeal Dy. No. 473/2023 Date: 21.12.2023
Bank of Baroda Vs. Savitri Devi Automobiles & others
Regular Appeal No. 89/2016
M/s Savitri Devi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda & others
Appeal Dy. No. 539/2023
Proficient Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda & others Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the Bank, Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the Borrower-Company, Shri A. K. Srivastava, counsel for the other Borrowers, Shri S. K. Gupta, counsel for the Auction Purchaser,
The office report dated 20.12.2023 shows that no rejoinder has been filed by the appellant to the reply filed by the respondent no. 1 to the settlement/compromise application being I.A. No. 792/2023. The Auction Purchaser has not filed any reply to the said application. Let the rejoinder by the appellant to the reply of the respondent no. 1 and reply by the respondent no. 4 be filed by the next date, failing which appropriate order shall be passed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Company submits that the settlement has been arrived at between the parties as the property of the respondent no. 1-Company was sought to be auctioned by the appellant-Bank and further states that he is one of the directors of the respondent-company and he did not sign any agreement with the Bank. It is further submitted that some of the directors in connivance with the Bank and the auction purchaser have entered into the compromise to usurp the property of the respondent-company.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether directors of the borrower company have locus standi to object to a settlement between the bank and borrowers when the company was never involved in the loan application or disbursement.
Whether the settlement between the bank and borrowers and auction purchasers is valid given the subsequent attempt by director and outsiders to usurp the property.
Whether the security interest of the bank over the property is affected by the alleged connivance of directors in compromising the settlement.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Bank of Baroda
- respondent
Savitri Devi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
Proficient Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · December
- CNR
- 091090004732023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court