Vaishnavi Agarwal v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of an appeal challenging a direction to deposit Rs. 3.00 crore. The Tribunal allowed the bank to proceed with auction but noted the deposit condition remains in place and directed expedited disposal of the pending SARFAESI application.
What did the court decide?
Appeal disposed at admission stage; no order as to costs; DRT directed to dispose SARFAESI application expediously.
Diary No. 719 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Diary No. 719 of 2022
(Arising out of S.A. 300 of 2022 in DRT-I, Hyderabad)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON
- Vaishnavi Agarwal, H. No. 19-5-9-10, H B Colony, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, Telangana;
- Om Anmol Agarwal, H. No. 19-5-9-10, H B Colony, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad, Telangana.
- … Appellants
-Versus-
- Canara Bank, ARM Branch, Ground Floor, Circle Office Building, Beside Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad – 500 026;
- Sailesh Kumar Agarwal, Sonof Late Mahesh Chand Agarwal and Late Rajkumari Agarwal, H. No. 8-2-269/5/56, Plot No. 56, Road No. 2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana;
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the DRT had jurisdiction to impose a condition for depositing Rs. 3.00 crore while letting the bank proceed with proposed auction.
Whether the Appeal should be admitted given that the appellants had not kept the court-appointed deposit order complied with.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Vaishnavi Agarwal
- appellant
Om Anmol Agarwal
- respondent
Canara Bank
- respondent
Sailesh Kumar Agarwal
- respondent
Dinesh Kumar Agarwal
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · January
- CNR
- 191090007192022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 · Anil Kumar Srivastava
- Order 2 — this page · Anil Kumar Srivastava
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court