Allowed

Rbl Bank Limited v. Khedut Agro Engineering Private Limited

DRAT17 Jan 2023MISC APPEAL/4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, disposed of a stay application in an appeal against a DRT order. The court directed the Presiding Officer to consider ad-interim relief regarding movable properties at risk of removal.

What did the court decide?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal was directed to consider the ad-interim relief application including injunction and appointment of a commissioner within two weeks.

Rbl Bank Limited versus Khedut Agro Engineering Private Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 29/2023 (Stay) In Misc. Appeal No. 04/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

RBL Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. M/s. Khedut Agro Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s An Advocate for Appellant is present.

¶5

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by the Appellant seeking urgent relief.

¶6

The Appellant bank is in Appeal aggrieved by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Ahmedabad (DRT) not considering its application for an ad-interim relief with regard to certain movable properties which does not form part of the secured assets but are valuable properties which are likely to be removed by the borrowers on receipts of the notices and summons issued to them.

¶7

The learned Presiding Officer has, vide order dated 07.12.2022 directed issuance of the summons notices u/s 19 (4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (‘RDB Act’, for short), but has not passed any order regarding the ad-interim relief sought by the Applicant, apprehending the removal of the movables by the debtor. Hence, the applicant is aggrieved and in appeal.

¶8

¶9

The Respondents were served, but none appeared.

¶10

The Ld. counsel for the Appellant was heard and records were perused.

¶11

Appeal is disposed of with the direction to the Ld. Presiding Officer D.R.T. to consider the reliefs sought by the applicant in their application with regard to the injunction sought u/s 19 (3)(a) and (4) of the RDB Act. It is also pertinent to note that the case stands post to 27.03.2023 before the DRT, and the apprehension of the applicant is that the properties mentioned in the application are likely to be removed if notice is given to the borrowers and therefore, the necessity for ad interim relief and the appointment of the commissioner to take inventory of the articles in the premise which requires to the proceeded against. It is also relevant to note that the Applicant has pleaded that the secured assets are not sufficient to satisfy the claim made in the application. Hence, the requirement for proceeding against the others assets belonging to the borrowers. Appropriate orders shall be passed in the interlocutory relief sought by the applicant as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of two weeks.

¶12

The Appeal is disposed as above.

¶13

psa-06

¶14

Rbl Bank Limited v. Khedut Agro Engineering Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbl Bank Limited v. Khedut Agro Engineering Private 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

Similar cases

Hema D Sukhwani versus Recovery Officer

Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Sajjankumar Soni versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd. and Ors.

asset reconstruction company india limited versus Mr. Narendra S/o Vishwanath Jadhav

Rbl Bank Limited versus Khedut Agro Engineering Private Limited

Ms Kumandas Visanji & Anr. versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.