Disposed

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Daljit Singh Tirath Singh Gurudatta and Ors.

DRAT4 Jan 2023MISC APPEAL/19/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interim order disposing of an appeal challenging a DRT stay on an asset auction, directing the lower tribunal to dispose of the securitisation application expediently without interference from previous observations regarding the applicants' title.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; directed the DRT, Pune to dispose of S.A. No. 23/2021 untrammelled by interim orders on title within 2 months of receipt.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Daljit Singh Tirath Singh… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 19/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Daljit Singh Tirath Singh Gurudatta and Ors. …Respondent/s Mr. Nishant Rana, i/b M/s. Zastriya, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Vishal Tambe, i/b Mr Vijay Chandawale, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 & 2.

¶6

Mr Shadab Khan, i/b Mr R.L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent No. 6

¶7

-: Order dated: 04/01/2023:-

¶8

The matter came up for hearing today. The Appellant Bank is challenging the interlocutory order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Pune in I.A. No. 113 of 2021 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 23 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021, in which the auction sale as well as taking over of physical possession of the secured assets scheduled to be held was stalled till the consideration of the title set up by the Applicants in the S.A. is decided.

¶9

The Applicants in the S.A. are neither borrowers nor mortgagers but claim to be the real owners of the property which was allegedly assigned to them by the borrowers in the year 2012 by way of an agreement for sale. The Ld. Presiding Officer has not gone into the details of the agreement for sale and its sanctity. The Appellant is aggrieved that the sale has been stalled, and therefore,

¶10

¶11

they are in appeal challenging the impugned order.

¶12

It is now submitted that the S.A. stands posted tomorrow for consideration and hearing. I, therefore, do not intend to go into the merits of the case which has been casually mentioned in the impugned order. Those observations are definitely not binding on the D.R.T. when the S.A. is being considered finally, considering all rival contentions raised by the parties. I direct that the S.A. be disposed of untrammelled by whatever is mentioned in the impugned order regarding the title set up by the Applicants in the S.A. or the assignment of debt in favour of the Appellant.

¶13

Since the S.A. is being posted for tomorrow, there is no embargo in hearing and disposing of the S.A. on merits.

¶14

Hence, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the D.R.T, Pune to dispose of S.A. No. 23 of 2021 untrammelled by whatever is observed in the impugned order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order of this Tribunal.

¶15

rm-21

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

¶17

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Daljit Singh Tirath Singh Gurudatta and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Daljit Singh Tirath Singh Gurudatta and Ors.

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

N/S Esha Farm Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra & Ors.

Shri Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Boarding versus Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Suhas Abhimanyu Shinde versus the Authorised Office, Muslim Co-Operative Bank

Dinesh Rikabchand Kothari versus State Bank of India

M/s. Yuvraj Infrastructure versus Icici Bank Limited

Shri Jain Swetamber Murtipujak Boarding versus Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.