Disposed

Raju Mithailal Dube v. Icici Bank Limited

DRAT16 Nov 2023IA/755/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against DRT order refusing stay on SARFAESI measures. Tribunal stayed proceedings contingent on payment of balance sale consideration of ₹2,60,000/- with interest by Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 within 20 days. Appellant undertook to surrender possession upon payment. Postponed for compliance reporting.

What did the court decide?

Stay on SARFAESI measures pending implementation of settlement terms: payment of ₹2,60,000 by Respondents 2 & 3 and surrender of possession by Appellant.

Raju Mithailal Dube versus Icici Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 755/2023 (Stay) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 137/2023

¶4

Between

¶5

Raju Mithailal Dube … Appellant/s

¶6

V/s.

¶7

ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr Vinayak Palande, i/b Mr Rushikesh Kharat, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶9

Mr Santosh Bhide along with Ms Kritika Joshi, i/b M/s Bhide & Associates, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Bank.

¶10

-: Order dated: 16/11/2023:-

¶11

The Appellant is a third-party unpaid seller who allegedly sold the secured asset to Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 who in turn mortgaged the property to Respondent No. 1 bank for availing a loan which was ultimately defaulted and steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) were initiated by the Respondent bank for recovery against the secured asset. The Appellant who claims to be in possession of the property, did not get a favourable order in the Securitisation Application (S.A.)No. 458 of 2023 filed by him to stall the Sarfaesi measures and the interlocutory prayer sought was declined vide the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (D.R.T.). The Appellant is aggrieved, and hence, in appeal.

¶12

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under instructions of Respondent No. 2 is also present undertakes to pay the amount that is due and payable as balance sale consideration to the Appellant amounting to ₹2,60,000/- with interest within 20 working days, and the Appellant agrees to that proposal. On payment of the amount, the Appellant is willing to withdraw the appeal and also his contention with regard to the Sarfaesi measures.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant under instructions, submits that the possession of the secured asset would be voluntarily surrendered to the first Respondent within a week. In case it is not surrendered within a week, the first Respondent bank is at liberty to proceed with taking over the possession as per law.

¶15

Recording these submissions, post the matter on 20.12.2023 for reporting compliance.

¶16

mks-09

¶17

Raju Mithailal Dube v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Mithailal Dube v. Icici Bank Limited

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hitesh Suresh Mehta versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.

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

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

Mr Manish Mahendrabhai Patel And Anr. versus Authorised Officer Indian Bank

The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd. versus M/S Unitech International Limited

M/s Tob Line Shoes Ltd. and Anr. versus Corporation Bank and Anr.