Allowed

asset reconstruction company india limited v. Mr. Narendra S/o Vishwanath Jadhav

DRAT17 Jan 2023IA/11/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged an interlocutory order directing status quo in a Securitisation Application filed by the Respondent in the DRT, Aurangabad. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal without adjudicating maintainability, vacating the stay order.

What did the court decide?

The order directing status quo was vacated; the Securitisation Application to be disposed of on merits within two months.

asset reconstruction company india limited versus Mr. Narendra S/o… — Arbitration | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 11/2023 (Direction) In Misc. Appeal No. 161/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. Narendra S/o Vishwanath Jadhav …Respondent/s An Advocate for the Appellant is present. An Advocate for the Respondent is present.

¶5

Appellant creditor impugns the interlocutory order of the Ld. Presiding Officer in Securitisation Application (S.A.) 417/2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Aurangabad dated 16.11.2022 directing the parties to maintain the status quo.

¶6

The Appellant has raised many contentions including the very maintainability of S.A. by the Respondent, stating that he is only a former director of the borrower company which has gone into the liquidation and an official liquidator has been pointed and proceedings are pending under the IBC. Under the circumstance, the former director of the company under liquidation could not have approached the D.R.T. with an application under the SARFAESI Act, challenging the Sarfaesi measures.

¶7

When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the pleadings are complete in the S.A. and that the S.A. itself is ripe for hearing. Under these circumstances,

¶8

¶9

without going into the merits of the contentions raised, including the contention regarding the maintainability of the S.A., the Appeal is disposed of. The order of the D.R.T. directing the status quo to be maintained is hereby vacated and it is hereby directed that the S.A. shall be taken up for hearing as expeditiously as possible and disposed of on merits at any rate within a period of two months from receipt of the copy of this order. The sale, of the secured assets, if conducted, shall be subject to the ultimate decision taken by the D.R.T. in the S.A.

¶10

Appeal disposed of as above.

¶11

Sd/Chairperson

¶12

psa-04

¶13

asset reconstruction company india limited v. Mr. Narendra S/o Vishwanath Jadhav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

asset reconstruction company india limited v. Mr. Narendra S/o Vishwanath Jadhav

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

Similar cases

Hema D Sukhwani versus Recovery Officer

Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Sajjankumar Soni versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Rbl Bank Limited versus Khedut Agro Engineering Private Limited

Ms Kumandas Visanji & Anr. versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.

M/S Meeti Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda