Quashed

Kokila H Shah v. Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

DRAT9 Jan 2024IA/15/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal seeking urgent relief, the tribunal held that while all recovery applications should be decided together, the specific claim by the Appellant over attached property (Exhibit No. 162) must be disposed of expeditiously before execution proceedings can proceed against that property.

What did the court decide?

Directed that Exhibit No. 162 filed by the Appellant raising a claim over the attached property be decided expeditiously before proceeding against the attached property.

Kokila H Shah versus Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 15/2024 (Stay)

¶3

¶4

Appeal No. 02/2024

Between

Kokila H. Shah

… Appellant/s

V/s.

Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd., acting …Respondent/s in its capacity as Trustee of the Alchemist XXXVI Trust & Ors.

¶10

Mr. Prashant Pandit along with Mr. Puneet Gogad and Mr. Rajat Bhosale, i/b M/s. Ajay Law Associate, Advocate for Appellant.

¶11

Mr. Chirag Mody along with Mr. Vinay Deshpande & Mr. Rupak Sawangikar, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Respondent.

¶12

Mr. Sharath Pai, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶13

Mr. Minesh K. Shah, i/b Mr. G.C. Mohanty, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 (a), 4 (b) & 5

¶14

-: Order dated: 09/01/2024:-

¶15

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Respondents for seeking urgent relief.

¶16

This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 04.12.2023 in Appeal No. 21/2023 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) by which the Ld. Recovery Officer was directed to dispose of applications filed as Exhibits Nos. 162, 141, and 142 within eight weeks. The Appellant is aggrieved for the reason that her application pending at Exhibit No. 162 is not been considered whereas the application pending at Exhibit No. 141 and 142 are

¶17

¶18

being considered and heard. The Appellant apprehends that in case Exhibits No. 141 & 142 are heard and disposed of, the Appellant would lose the claim raised in Ext, 162 by her over the attached property.

¶19

The Ld. Presiding Officer had directed all three applications to be decided simultaneously. It is as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3333/2018 dated 18.12.20218 that the Financial Institution was directed to take expeditious steps to implead the Appellant as a party respondent in the recovery proceedings and in case any application is made by the Appellant in the event of her impleadment, the recovery officer was directed decide that application also expeditiously.

¶20

The order of the Ld. Presiding Officer is to decide all these applications together and the apprehension of the Appellant that Exhibit No. 162 will not be heard and disposed of before Exhibits No. 141 & 142, is misplaced. In case Exhibit No. 162 is allowed on the claim of the Appellant being found to be genuine, the action against the property cannot proceed ignoring her right over the property. And in case the same is dismissed, there is absolutely no embargo in proceeding against the property. To make things clear, the recovery officer is hereby directed that Exhibit No. 162 filed by the Appellant raising a claim over the attached property may be decided expeditiously and the property which is attached be proceeded against only after disposing of Exhibit No. 162 filed by the Appellant on 22.06.2023.

¶21

¶22

The applications shall be disposed of expeditiously since the matter has been pending for quite some time, at any rate, within eight weeks from the receipt of this order.

¶23

The appeal is disposed of.

¶24

Sd/Chairperson

¶25

psa-07

¶26

Kokila H Shah v. Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kokila H Shah v. Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

khodal cotton processing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

The Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus mrs kavita vittalakkar

Smt Shalan Sakharam Patil and Ors. versus Bandhan Bank Limited

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India

Adi Impex Infra Services versus State Bank of India

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India