Allowed

Ms R P Laser Tech v. Indian Bank

DRAT3 Sept 2024IA/61/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT Mumbai allowed the appeal by setting aside the order maintaining the petition. The Tribunal directed the DRT-II Ahmedabad to first decide the condonation of delay application and other interlocutory prayers before disposing of the securitization application on merits, as no merit-specific order had been passed previously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad, to consider the condonation of delay applications and other interlocutory prayers before deciding the securitization application on merits.

Ms R P Laser Tech versus Indian Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 61/2024 (WoD)

¶2

¶3

Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 164/2024 Between

¶4

Ms. R P. Laser Tech & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Indian Bank …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala, i/b Ms. Kanjani Trivedi, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Ajikumar, i/b M/s. VNA Legal, Advocate for Respondent appeared through a Video Conference.

¶8

-: Order dated: 03/09/2024:-

¶9

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent has objected to the maintainability of this appeal, stating that the proceedings of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T) dated 23.01.2024 cannot challenged in appeal because no orders were passed by the D.R.T on merits.

¶10

It is seen that the Securitization Application (S.A.) was filed by the appellants before the D.R.T-II, Ahmedabad with a delay of 21 days, and M.A. No. 09/2024 was filed for condoning that delay. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the delay is 150 days and not 21 days and therefore, the application of condonation of delay will have to be considered first before passing any order in the S.A. and therefore, this appeal be disposed of with a direction to the D.R.T-II, Ahmedabad to considered M.A. No. 09/2024 on its merits after hearing both sides. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants also agrees to this suggestion.

¶11

The appeal is disposed of and the D.R.T. is directed to

¶12

¶13

consider the matter afresh after deciding the application for condonation of delay, and the interlocutory prayer for protection filed by the appellants. The applications shall be considered on their merits as expeditiously as possible untrammelled by whatever was observed earlier. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that a status quo order may be passed till the application is heard by the D.R.T for which the Ld. Counsel for the respondent objected. The appeal was not taken on file and the application for waiver of deposit was also not considered by this Tribunal therefore, the appeal is not yet entertained by this Tribunal. Hence, no order to maintain the status quo could be ordered.

¶14

However, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank under instructions submits that no precipitative measures are being taken by the bank against the subject property. Therefore, sufficient notice of not less than two weeks shall be served on the appellant before such steps are taken by the bank.

¶15

Sd/Chairperson

¶16

rm-2

¶17

Ms R P Laser Tech v. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms R P Laser Tech v. Indian Bank

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

Mr Tanishi Life Science Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Maharashtra versus Ms Narayana Farm Produce Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

M/S.Nirmal Developers through Its Partners Mr.Mujahid Juber Momin versus Tjsb Sahakari Bank

Ritesh Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Omprakash R. Agarwal versus Central Bank of India & Ors.

Reliable Polyesters Private Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda