Allowed

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Limited v. Pandurang Solanke

DRAT17 Aug 2023IA/559/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal vacated a status quo order granted in a securitisation application. The court held that an application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant, along with a caveat, must be determined first before any interlocutory order is passed regarding the application.

What did the court decide?

Vacated the order of status quo dated 11.07.2023; directed the Presiding Officer to first decide the application for condonation of delay before considering the securitisation application.

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Limited versus Pandurang… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.106/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Pandurang Solanke & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Rohit Gupta, i/b Mr Indrajeet Hingane, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Fraser M. Alexander, Advocate for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

¶7

-: Order dated: 17/08/2023:-

¶8

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe dated 07.08.2023 filed by the Appellant for seeking urgent relief.

¶9

This is a Misc. Appeal filed by Respondent No. 8 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 224 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.) challenging the order dated 11.07.2023 granting a status quo with regard to the steps being taken in the S.A. by the second Respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short). It is understood that there was an Original Application (O.A.) which already stands allowed in favour of the Bank by the D.R.T., Mumbai. It is also brought to the notice of the D.R.T. that though the Appellant had earlier filed a caveat, without serving notice on the Appellant, an interim order to maintain the status quo has been passed. It is further submitted that the S.A. was filed by the first Respondent

¶10

¶11

herein with a delay of 97 days and an application for condonation of delay is still pending to be determined. Without even considering the application for condonation of delay, the Ld. Presiding Officer has granted an order of status quo to be maintained. The Appellant who is the auction purchaser has already deposited 25% of the sale consideration and before he could deposit the balance 75% of the amount, the proceedings have been stalled. Earlier, a stay was obtained by the wife and children of the first Respondent which was taken up before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad and stands vacated by the order dated 11.07.2023. It is pertinent to note that when there is an application for condonation of delay in filing S.A., that has to be determined first. Only after condoning the delay will the application come on record to be considered for passing any interlocutory order. I believe that the Ld. Presiding Officer has acted with haste in granting an ad-interim order of status quo to be maintained.

¶12

The first Respondent has been served but has not appeared.

¶13

The second Respondent Bank has appeared and has supported the Appellant in getting the impugned order of status quo vacated.

¶14

Under the circumstances, I find that the order of status quo granted by the Ld. Presiding Office vide order dated 11.07.2023 is not sustainable, and therefore, stands vacated. The appeal is disposed of with a direction that the Ld. Presiding Office shall first consider the application for condonation of delay and only if that application is allowed, will the S.A. be taken on the file and further interlocutory

¶15

¶16

orders or any other orders be passed in that S.A. With these observations, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

mks-4

¶19

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Limited v. Pandurang Solanke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Limited v. Pandurang Solanke

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Prabhudas patel versus Rbl Bank Limited

Smt. Smita Sushilchandra Narvekar versus Rajapur Urban Co-op Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Ritesh Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Smt Mangala Pralhadrao Sundarkar versus Bank of Maharashtra and Anr.

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Limited versus Pandurang Solanke

Linen Art Private Limited versus Catalyst Trusteeship Limited