Bank of Baroda v. Hans Ispat Ltd.
Case brief
What is this about?
Common order clarifying that a stay order dated 19.04.2022 does not constitute an embargo on recovery proceedings against other borrower properties before the Recovery Officer. The appeal was adjourned.
What did the court decide?
Clarification that the stay order is not an embargo on recovery regarding other properties; appeal posted for hearing.
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.
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.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
- respondent
M/s. Hans Ispat Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
12 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court