Allowed

Vinod Madhukar Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

DRAT21 Jun 2023MISC APPLICATION/64/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal restored an appeal dismissed for non-deposit of a pre-amount due to delay in realizing funds from another city and ordered acceptance of the deposited sum. The order staying property possession is reinstated.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was restored to file; the deposited payment amount of ₹5 lakhs was accepted; the order stalling the taking over of possession was reinstated till the next date of hearing.

Vinod Madhukar Bombale versus Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A. No. 64/2023 (Restoration)

¶2

¶3

(Appeal on Diary 964/2023- Disposed of)

¶4

Between

¶5

Vinod Madhukar Bombale … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Shri. Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Co-op. …Respondent/s Bank., Beed, & Ors.

¶7

An Advocate for the Appellant is present.

¶8

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

¶9

This Tribunal had vide order dated 15.06.2023 disposed of I.A. No. 387/2023 by directing the Appellant to deposit the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs as pre-deposit in instalments.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant had undertaken to deposit ₹ 5 lakhs on 16.06.2023 by 1:00 pm. The balance amount was directed to be deposited within six weeks on or before, 28.07.2023. It was further directed that on deposit of ₹ 5 lakhs on 16.06.2023 the further Sarfaesi measures shall stand stalled till the next date of hearing.

¶11

The Appellant had drawn a demand draft for ₹ 5 lakhs in favour of the Registrar which is also produced before this Tribunal together with a pursis. Unfortunately, the demand draft could not be produced before 1:00 pm on 16.06.2023 for the reason that it had to

¶12

¶13

come from Aurangabad and therefore, for non-deposit of predeposit instalment, the Appeal stood dismissed.

¶14

The Appellant has now filed an application for restoration of the Appeal which is at Diary No. 1008/2023 (M.A. No. 64/2023). Notice has been served on the Counsel appearing for Respondent Bank but there is no representation for the Respondent. In this application, the Appellant has also sought an extension of time to accept the 1^st instalment out of time.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel for Respondent Bank is not present today when the application is taken up on praecipe for an urgent hearing. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant apprehends that the possession of the property may be taken today and hence, he has come up with this praecipe to take the Appeal urgently.

¶16

The application shall be taken on file and it stands allowed. The Appeal at Diary No. 964/2023 shall be restored to file and the application of M.A. No. 64/2023 stands allowed and the Appeal at Diary No. 964/2023 shall be restored to file and the amount of ₹ 5 lakhs shall be accepted by the office. The order stalling the taking over the possession of the property by this Tribunal is also restored till the next date of hearing.

¶17

Post on 31.07.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the payment of the 2^nd instalment.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

psa-36

¶20

Vinod Madhukar Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Madhukar Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

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

Similar cases

Allahabad Bank & Ors. versus Sumit Kumar Agarwal & Ors.

Paramjit Sales & Service Private Limited versus Rukunuddin G. Sheikh & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Rukunuddin G Sheikh

The Greater Bombay Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus Wings Entertainment P Ltd. & Ors.

Sam Family Trust versus Catalyst Trusteeship Limited

Ms Mitexco and Ors. versus Canara Bank