Allowed

Adi Impex Infra Services v. State Bank of India

DRAT26 Aug 2024IA/596/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed an application for appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect a secured factory premises and prepare an inventory. This interim measure was granted despite opposition, with costs to be borne by the applicant and the report due before the next hearing date.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Advocate Commissioner (Ms. Aarti Suvarna) to inspect factory premises and prepare inventory of movables; report to be filed before 11.09.2024; applicant to bear costs.

Adi Impex Infra Services versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.589/2024

¶2

¶3

Appeal No.18/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

State Bank of India & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. Adi Impex Infra Service & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Bidan Chandran (through video-conferencing) along with Mr Umar F. Azam i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocates for Appellant. Mr Vasant Kumar Takke, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 to 7.

¶8

Ms Rubina Khan i/b M/s. Fortis India Law, Advocate for Respondent Nos.10 & 11.

¶9

Mr Rishabh Shah along with Mr Harjot Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.13.

¶10

Mr Meghnath Navlani, Advocate for Intervenor.

¶11

Ms Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for Matimi Steels.

¶12

AND I.A. No.596/2024 In Misc. Appeal No.27/2024 Between HAQ Steel and Mataliks Ltd. …Applicant/s(org Respondent No.15⁾

¶13

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶14

..... Appellant/s

¶15

Adi Impex Infra Service V/s. State Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s 1

¶16

Mr Vasant Kumar Takke, Advocate for Appellant.

¶17

Mr Bidan Chandran (through video-conferencing) along with Mr Umar F. Azam i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1.

¶18

Ms Rubina Khan i/b M/s. Fortis India Law, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶19

Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Respondent Nos.10 to 14.

¶20

Mr Rishabh Shah along with Mr Harjot Singh, Advocates for Respondent No.15.

¶21

¶22

Mr Meghnath Navlani, Advocate for Intervenor.

¶23

Ms Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for Matimi Steels.

¶24

-: Common Order dated: 26/08/2024:-

¶25

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

¶26

Respondent No.15 in Appeal No.27/2024 who is also respondent No. 13 in Appeal No.18/2024 is the successful auction purchaser, is concerned about the theft taking place of the movables in the factory which is a secured asset that has been taken possession of by the bank and therefore, he has moved an application for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to take an inventory of the movable articles lying within the premises. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the bank is taking proper care of the properties and that there is no possibility of any pilferage at the premises. It is also submitted that they don’t have any objection to the appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the property and take an inventory of the articles lying within the premises. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the borrower has very vehemently opposed this application stating that such an application

¶27

¶28

is only a ruse to get the disposal of the appeals protracted by such dilatory tactics. I do not find any reason to find that the hearing of the appeals which stands posted on 11.09.2024 for hearing would get protracted because of the appointment of an advocate commissioner. The inventory can be taken and the list of the articles available on the premises can be recorded and the report submitted before the hearing. It is in no way going to protract the hearing of the appeals. Therefore, the application is allowed and the Advocate Ms Aarti Suvarna is appointed as commissioner to inspect the property and prepare an inventory of the movables found at the premises. A remuneration of ₹30,000/- shall be paid by the applicant directly to the commissioner and a memo filed. Arrangement shall also be made by the applicant for the travel and accommodation of the commissioner to facilitate her to complete the work. Notice shall be served by the commissioner on all the parties concerned before inspection, and the inspection shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and the report shall be filed preferably before 11.09.2024.

¶29

List on 11.09.2024 for a hearing. Interim orders, if any, shall continue till the next date.

¶30

Nidhi-09 & 10

¶31

Adi Impex Infra Services v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adi Impex Infra Services v. State Bank of India

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

Shantiben Navalkishor Kamti and Ors. versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Ashish Ramesh Hirurkar versus The Authorised Officer Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Vnr Entrprises and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Arclil versus O/L of Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. & Ors.

Deustche Bank versus Rajarshi Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Ginning and Ginning versus Bank of Maharashtra