Allowed

The Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Raver Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

DRAT26 Jun 2023IA/355/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an intervention application from a financier who claimed to have funded an auction purchaser. The appeal involves the setting aside of an asset sale by a lower tribunal. The court found no harm in impleading the intervener given the pending disposition of the main appeal on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for intervention allowed; Appeal re-opened for hearing limited to the claim of the intervener.

The Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 355/2023 In

¶3

Appeal No. 97/2015

¶4

Between Union Bank Of India …Applicant/s In the Matter Of The Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank … Appellant/s Ltd & Anr.

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Raver Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. …Respondent/s & Anr.

¶7

Mr. V.A. Pawar, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. M.M. Avhad, Advocate for Respondent No.1

¶8

Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b M/s. U. Shah Legal, Advocate for Intervener.

¶9

-: Order dated: 26/06/2023:-

¶10

This is an application filed in the Appeal by the intervener who claims to have financed the auction purchaser of the secured assets which has been sold to the auction purchaser. The auction sale has been set aside in the impugned order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.). The said order of the D.R.T. stands challenged by the Bank in this Appeal. The intervener wants to get impleaded in the Appeal to have his say.

¶11

The intervener claims the amount which has been deposited by the auction purchaser in case the amount is directed to be returned to the auction purchaser since that amount was advanced to the auction purchaser. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the intervener has the option to get himself impleaded,

¶12

¶13

as and when the question of returning the amount to the auction purchaser arises for consideration. As it stands, the impugned order states nothing about the return of the amount and therefore, it is too early for the auction purchaser or the intervener financier to come up with his claim over the amount deposited by the auction purchaser.

¶14

After having heard both sides, I find that there is no harm in allowing the intervention application because it is not in any way going to interfere with the merits of the Appeal. The Appeal has already been heard and posted for orders on the 4^th of July 2023. It is only when the Appeal is disposed of does the prayer of the intervener needs consideration. There is absolutely no harm in considering that prayer, for which purpose the impleadment of the intervener is necessary.

¶15

Hence, the application is allowed and necessary amendment to the Appeal Memorandum shall be carried out within a week and hence, the Appeal is re-open for hearing for the limited purpose of hearing the claim of the intervener.

¶16

Post on 10.07.2023 before the Registrar for carrying out the impleadment.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

psa-04

¶19

The Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Raver Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the Raver Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

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

Ifci Ltd. versus Rainbow Papers Ltd.

Shri. Balkrishna Mohiniraj Bhagat(This is) through his LRs versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Kalpesh Vinodchandra Chavda Anr. Anr. versus State Bank of India Anr. Ors.

Pareshbhai Virjibhai Bhaliya versus Bank of Baroda

Daljit Singh Tirath Singh Gurudatta and another versus Kalpana Udaykant Surana and others

Seema Randip Singh Thakur versus Icici Bank Limited