This order lists the appeal for reply. It directs the Appellant to file a response to the Respondent-Company's submissions regarding the validity of a settlement and auction, and to file a rejoinder to the Reply of Respondent No.1 and respond to Respondent No.4 by the next date, failing which appropriate orders will be passed.
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. 473/2023 Date: 21.12.2023
Bank of Baroda Vs. Savitri Devi Automobiles & others
Regular Appeal No. 89/2016
M/s Savitri Devi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Bank of Baroda & others
Appeal Dy. No. 539/2023
Proficient Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Baroda & others Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the Bank, Shri Alok Rai, counsel for the Borrower-Company, Shri A. K. Srivastava, counsel for the other Borrowers, Shri S. K. Gupta, counsel for the Auction Purchaser,
The office report dated 20.12.2023 shows that no rejoinder has been filed by the appellant to the reply filed by the respondent no. 1 to the settlement/compromise application being I.A. No. 792/2023. The Auction Purchaser has not filed any reply to the said application. Let the rejoinder by the appellant to the reply of the respondent no. 1 and reply by the respondent no. 4 be filed by the next date, failing which appropriate order shall be passed.
Learned counsel for the respondent-Company submits that the settlement has been arrived at between the parties as the property of the respondent no. 1-Company was sought to be auctioned by the appellant-Bank and further states that he is one of the directors of the respondent-company and he did not sign any agreement with the Bank. It is further submitted that some of the directors in connivance with the Bank and the auction purchaser have entered into the compromise to usurp the property of the respondent-company.
Learned counsels for the Bank, borrowers and the auction purchaser state that the Borrower-company was never in the picture, when the loan was applied for and was disbursed and it did not file any securitization application against the proceedings of the Bank, whereas they are outsiders, who have come in picture after all affairs of the company were over, therefore, they have no locus to object the settlement arrived at between the Bank and the borrowers as well as the auction purchasers.
Let the appellant file their response to the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent-Company by the next date.
List this case on 20.03.2024 for reply.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
VN Giri
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellants are required to file a rejoinder to the reply filed by Respondent No.1 against the settlement application
Whether the Appellants are required to file a reply to the application by Respondent No.4
Whether the settlement arrived at between the Bank and Borrowers is challenged by the current Appellants
Bank of Baroda
Proficient Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Bank of Baroda
M/s Savitri Devi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
R. D. Khare
VN Giri
As recorded by the court registry
15 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
