Disposed

Shree Ganesh Tubewell and Borewell v. Jijau Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

DRAT4 Oct 2024IA/278/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT dismissed a miscellaneous appeal regarding the competency of the DRAT vs. Cooperative Court in determining the correctness of a debt amount under SARFAESI Act. The court directed the DRAT to dispose of an expert appointment request and the Securitisation Application within three months, continuing interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to DRAT to dispose of the Securitisation Application and expert appointment application within three months; continuation of interim protection for appellants.

Shree Ganesh Tubewell and Borewell versus Jijau Commercial… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.55/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

Shree Ganesh Tubewell and Borewell & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. Jijau Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶5

Jijau Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd.

¶6

Mr Atul Pande, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Mr Gajendra R. Sadar, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

The appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 02.08.2023 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1631 of 2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 29 of 2020 where they declined to grant any protection concerning the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent bank of recovery of the debt under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short). The appeal was entertained on finding that there was a prima facie case and the appellants were directed to deposit Rs.25 lakhs as pre-deposit which has already been deposited and the appeal has been taken on file.

¶9

The main objection about the Sarfaesi measures appears to be regarding the correctness of the amount which has been demanded by the respondent bank. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that an expert will have to be appointed to verify the

¶10

¶11

correctness of the account statement and only that amount be determined and directed to be recovered. To this submission, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank submits that the appellants have the alternate remedy for approaching the Co-operative Court to get the dispute resolved. Whether the matter has to be decided by a Cooperative Court or whether the D.R.T. is competent to decide on whether the amount which has been demanded under Sec. 13(2) recovered and the fact regarding the correctness of the amount will have to be decided ultimately by the D.R.T. Therefore, I find that the appeal itself can be disposed of with the direction to the D.R.T. to dispose of any application filed by the applicants/appellants for appointment of an expert to examine the account and also dispose of the S.A. as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of order.

¶12

The Misc. Appeal is disposed of.

¶13

Interim protection granted to the appellants shall continue till the disposal of the S.A. within three months.

¶14

mks-17

¶15

Sd/Chairperson

¶16

Shree Ganesh Tubewell and Borewell v. Jijau Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Ganesh Tubewell and Borewell v. Jijau Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhatabhai Rice Mill and Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Azure Auto Ind Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Punjab Nation Bank (Erstwhile Obc) versus Ms Jagyasu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Icici Bank versus Kailash Narayan Karkera

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank

Mohammad Moinuddin Khan and Anr. versus PNB Housing Finance Limited and Others