An interim common order clarifying that a stay order does not constitute an embargo against recovery proceedings on other properties of the borrowers. The appeal is adjourned for hearing.
Clarified that the stay order is not an embargo on recovery of other properties. Adjourned.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Appeal No. 20/2022
Between Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction … Appellant/s Pvt. Ltd.
V/s.
Bank of Baroda & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. Rajesh Nagory, along with Mr. Harsh B and Mr. Gaurav Gandhi and Ms. Sailee Rane, i/b Mr. Harsh Behany, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. N Thakkar, along with Mr. Bhaskar Sharma and Mr. Shailesh Rai, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Madhavi Doshi, along with Mr. Shubham D, i/b M/s. Phoenix Legal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Ms. Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
And
Appeal No. 35/2022 Between Bank of Baroda … Appellant/s V/s.
M/s. Hans Ispat Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, along with Mr. Shailesh Rai, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Nagori along with Mr. Harsh Behany, i/b M/s. H N Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
Ms. Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
AND
Appeal No. 36/2022
Between
Bank of Baroda … Appellant/s V/s.
Invent Assets Securitization & Reconstruction …Respondent/s Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, along with Mr. Shailesh Rai, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Nagori along with Mr. Harsh Behany, i/b M/s. H N
1
Legal, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Ms. Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.5. AND
I.A. No. 16/2022 (CoD) In
Appeal on Diary No. 79/2020 Between
Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction … Appellant/s Pvt. Ltd.
V/s.
Bank of Baroda & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. V. Deshpande, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Bhaskar Sharma, along with Mr. Shailesh Rai Advocate for Respondent No.1
-: Common Order dated: 11/10/2023:-
This Tribunal had vide order dated 19.04.2022 granted a stay to
the further proceedings and also directed the parties to maintain the status quo. Thereafter, there was a further order of this Tribunal on 10.08.2022 with regard to the factory which was lying ideal and was directed to function on certain conditions as detailed in that order subject to the ultimate result of the appeal.
The parties express their anxiety about the status quo order which was made by this Tribunal on 19.04.2022, and seek clarification. It is made clear that the said order is not an embargo against the Appellant proceeding against the other properties belonging to the borrowers before the Recovery Officer.
This appeal is to be heard as expeditiously as possible. Since, today there are other older matters and part heard matters for hearing, it is not possible to hear this relatively recent appeal today.
The Recovery Officer will be at liberty to proceed with regard
2
to other property.
Post on 03.11.2023 for hearing.
Sd/Chairperson
rm-9-10-11-25
3
Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
Bank of Baroda
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
