Dismissed

Royal Medical Trust v. Canara Bank

DRAT30 Jan 2023MISC APPEAL/39/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a banking and recovery appeal against an interlocutory order, the debt recovery appellate tribunal clarified that its observations in the challenged order would not influence the final disposal of the main securitisation application. No opinion was expressed on the correctness of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of; both parties to bear their own costs; all pending IAs closed.

Royal Medical Trust versus Canara Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

MA (SA) 39/2022

¶2

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶3

Dated the 30^th of January, 2023

¶4

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA (SA) 39/2022

¶6

[IA 1011/2022 in SA 273/2022 on the file of DRT-I, Ernakulam]

¶7

Between

¶8

M/s. Royal Medical Trust, Mangode, Cherplassery, Palakkad – 679 503. Rep. by its Chairman and Trustee, Mr. Abdul Razak Moideen, S/o Moideen Haji, Rukshana Manzil, Kunnummakkara, Vadakara, Kozhikode – 673 308.

¶9

……Appellant

¶10

And

¶11

M/s. Canara Bank, ARM Branch,

¶12

Chittur Road, Kochi – 682 016.

¶13

Rep by Chief Manager and Authorised Officer.

¶14

M/s. Canara Bank, West Palace Branch, Srikrishna Building, 1^st Floor, West Palace Road,

¶15

Thrissur – 680 020.

¶16

Rep. by Manager and Authorised Officer.

¶17

….. Respondents

¶18

Counsel for Appellant : Mr. S. Sivaraman Counsel for Respondent Bank : Mr. S. Pandurangan

¶19

¶20

MA (SA) 39/2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Appeal is preferred against Interlocutory Order dated 27.06.2022 in IA 1011/2012 in SA 273/2022 of DRT-I, Ernakulam.

¶23

Both sides submitted their arguments touching merits of main case but, I am not recording them as it would amount to influencing Tribunal below in respect of merits, which have to be decided in main Securitisation Application.

¶24

Main grievance of Appellant appears to be that Tribunal below has made certain observations in para 4 of its Order about credit facilities availed by Appellant, and that observation may influence Tribunal below at the time of final disposal of main

¶25

¶26

MA (SA) 39/2022

¶27

Securitisation Application. As it is the main

¶28

apprehension of Appellant, I deem it appropriate to clarify that Tribunal below shall decide Securitisation Application, without being influenced by any of its observation made in Interlocutory Order,

¶29

independently, basing on the material produced before it, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides and dispose of Securitisation Application, on merits, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶30

It is made clear that no opinion is expressed

¶31

about correctness of the Order under challenge in this Appeal.

¶32

¶33

MA (SA) 39/2022

¶34

With the above observations, Appeal MA (SA) 39/2022 is disposed of. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶35

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 30^th of January, 2023]

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar ] CHAIRPERSON

¶38

Royal Medical Trust v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Royal Medical Trust v. Canara Bank

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

M/s.Surya Dairy farm & Ors. versus a.O., Iob & or

State Bank of India versus Arcil

Canara Bank versus M/s. Orient Vision Ltd. & Ors.

Royal Medical Trust versus Canara Bank

Jesima Garments Rep by N Alikhan and Wahidha Banu versus Bank of Baroda

Mr K Ramasamy versus Ao,Arcil