Dismissed

Mrs.Vasundhara W/O Govindrao Niture and another v. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRAT14 Oct 2024IA/559/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT dismissed the misc. appeal in a Securitisation Application case, holding that the appeal is unsustainable as the DR's dismissal of interim protection was justified due to the pending issue of condonation of delay in the S.A. itself.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed with a direction to the DRT to dispose of the application for condonation of delay in filing the S.A. at the earliest. Interlocutory Applications are dismissed as infructuous.

Mrs.Vasundhara W/O Govindrao Niture and another versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 559/2024 (CoD)

¶2

In Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 587/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

Vasundhara W/o Govindrao Niture & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent/s Mr. Rameshwar Sakhare, Advocate for Appellants appeared through Video Conferencing.

¶6

Mr. Pratik Irpatgire, Advocate for Respondents.

¶7

-: Order dated: 14/10/2024:-

¶8

The appellants have appealed impugning the order dated 26.12.2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) at Diary No. 562/2023 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T). No protection was granted to the appellants because the S.A. itself was filed with a delay. An application for condonation of delay in filing the S.A. is still pending consideration before D.R.T.

¶9

To entertain the appeal, the appellants were directed to deposit 50% of the debt due which has been complied with and the appeal now comes up for consideration. However, there is a delay of 53 days in filing this appeal which also needs to be condoned, for which the appellants have filed I.A. No. 559/2024.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no proper explanation forthcoming regarding the delay in filing the appeal and that on merits also, the appeal is not sustainable.

¶11

¶12

In the order of this Tribunal directing payment of pre-deposit, it was observed that the appellants do not have any prima facie case and it was also observed that the D.R.T. was justified in dismissing the application for interim protection. Because the delay in entertaining the S.A. was yet to be considered and therefore, I find that there is no merit in this Misc. Appeal. and there is also no reason for the delay to be condoned.

¶13

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with a direction to the D.R.T. to dispose of the application for condonation of delay in filing the S.A. at the earliest.

¶14

Interlocutory Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶15

rm-27

¶16

Mrs.Vasundhara W/O Govindrao Niture and another v. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.Vasundhara W/O Govindrao Niture and another v. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheshrao Dharma Pawar versus Bank of India

Gajalee Coastal Food Pvt. Ltd. versus Karnataka Bank Limited

Rupesh Pandey versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Mr Ashish J Thakkar versus Ms Repco Home Finance Limited

Chandrakant Ashok Patil versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Jawermal Deepchandji Mehta versus Uco Bank