Raju Pathak v. Icici Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellant filed appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act challenging interim order allowing bank to file reply without restoring possession. Court held remedy lies in Tribunal below.
What did the court decide?
None granted; court directed appellant to file appropriate application before the Tribunal below.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Appeal Dy. No. 1458/2023 Date: 08.12.2023
Raju Pathak Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Present: Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal below in S.A. No. 246/2023, whereby the Tribunal below has allowed the I.A. no. 522/2023 and permitted the respondent-Bank to file reply/counter affidavit against the S.A. No. 246/2023 without restoring the possession to the applicant subject to cost of Rs. 5000/-.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that since the securitization application is still pending before the Tribunal below, therefore, there is remedy open to the appellant by filing appropriate application for redressal of his grievances before the Tribunal below against the interim order. If such application is filed, this Tribunal has no doubt that the Tribunal below shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law preferably on the date fixed or most expeditiously.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal is maintainable when the underlying securitization application is pending before the Tribunal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Raju Pathak
- respondent
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Coram
Justice R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · December
- CNR
- 091090014582023
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 · LD Registrar
- Order 2 — this page · Rajesh Dayal Khare
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court