The Tribunal dismissed an appeal against an order deferring possession of secured assets. The Court held the appeal was premature as the impugned order granted the relief sought, negating cause of action for appeal. It directed parties to raise contentions before the DRT.
The Appeal was dismissed.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 436/2023 (Stay)
In
Misc. Appeal No. 88/2023
Between
Raghunath Maku Kokare & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.
GIC Housing Finance Ltd. …Respondent/s
Mr. Ankit Tiwari, i/b M/s. V.B. Tiwari & Co., Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocate for Respondent.
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.
The Appellants are in Appeal impugning the order dated 03.05.2023 in Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 198/2023 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (D.R.T.) aggrieved by the order which deferred possession of the secured assets by the 1st Respondent till 19.07.2023. The matter is posted before the D.R.T. tomorrow for further hearing on the interlocutory relief which has been sought by the Appellants with regard to the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the 1st Respondent against the secured assets over which the Appellants claim exclusive title by virtue of being the purchaser of the property in the year 2008.
1
Appellants in that order. Rather, the order seems to be in favour of the Appellants granting relief to defer the possession till the next date of hearing before the D.R.T., which is 19.07.2023. I am completely at a loss to understand why the Appellants have come up with Appeal impugning the said order. The Appellants cannot take a long jump to get relief in the application directly from the Appellate Court. Only in case, the relief sought by them is declined by the D.R.T., would a cause of action for appeal arise. In the instant case, I find that the Appellants have approached this Tribunal with an Appeal prematurely and therefore, they have to first seek their relief before the D.R.T. with regard to the interim prayer against the Sarfaesi measures. They are at liberty to raise all their contentions before the D.R.T. Likewise the Respondent is also at liberty to raise all their contentions before the D.R.T. and the D.R.T. would hear both sides and pass appropriate order regarding the prayer sought by the Applicants therein.
With these observations, the Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/Chairperson
psa-07
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal can be premised on an order granting interim relief to defer possession rather than denying it.
Whether the Appellants have approached the appellate tribunal prematurely without exhausting remedies at the DRT level regarding interim prayers.
Raghunath Maku Kokare & Anr.
GIC Housing Finance Ltd.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
