Disposed

Union Bank of India v. Base Industries

DRAT9 May 2023MISC APPEAL/16/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chairperson set aside the DLRT's refusal to condone delay. The Tribunal directed expediting disposal of the condonation application and securitization appeal within two months, without reviewing the merits of the underlying dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose of condonation application and special appeal within two months; interlocutory order regarding possession continued pending disposition of delay application.

Union Bank of India versus Base Industries — Property and Title | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 16/2021

¶2

Between

¶3

Union Bank of I n dia V/s.

¶4

Base Industries & Anr. Mr Nainesh Ami n , Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Respondent. -: Order dated: 09/05/2023:-

¶5

… Appellant/s

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

The Appel l ant is in appeal challenging the order of the D.R.T dated 23.08.201 9 in I.A. No. 657/2019 in S.A. at Lodging No. 416/2019 pendi n g before the Tribunal. There is a delay of 20 days in filing the S.A. f o r which a separate application fo r condonation of delay is also filed as M.A. No. 35/2019.

¶8

In the im p ugned order the Ld. Presiding Officer did not condone the del a y in filing the S.A. But the pra y er to seeking an interlocutory reli e f to stall the taking over of the p ossession of the secured asset has been passed in terms with a pra y er clause 4 (a) of I.A. filed by th e Applicant in the S.A. The A p pellant Bank is aggrieved and h e nce in appeal. The Ld. Counsel a ppearing for the Appellant submits that an order may be passe d for expeditious disposal of the S. A . itself.

¶9

Since the S .A. can be considered only afte r considering the application for condonation of delay, the Application for condonation of d elay that to be considered first a n d only then can

¶10

S.A. be considered.

¶11

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties across the bar that pleadings are complete and the S.A. itself can be disposed of. Under the circumstances, this Tribunal finds it appropriate that without entering into merits of the impugned order, the Misc Appeal be disposed of with a direction to the D.R.T. to dispose of the application for condonation of delay as well as the securitization application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two months.

¶12

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not gone into the merits of the dispute irrespective of that, that the interlocutory order restraining the taking over of the possession of the secured asset shall continue till the hearing of the M.A for condonation of delay is disposed of.

¶13

The application for condonation of delay and the S.A. shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶14

rm-26

¶15

Chairperson

¶16

Union Bank of India v. Base Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Base Industries

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vipul and company and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India & Ors. versus Official Liquidator High Court Bombay being the liquidator of M/s Parth Foils Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Platinum Metal & Trading Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. versus State Bank of India

Harshit Dinesh Mishra versus Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd.

Harshit Dinesh Mishra versus Aditya Birla Housing Finance Ltd.

Sekar Mari Mutthu Devendra versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors.