Allowed

Vijay Ganpati Pakhale v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

DRAT3 Oct 2024MISC APPEAL/111/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Mumbai Nodal Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered an appeal against an infructuous order where the Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a stay application regarding possession. Noting the property possession date had passed without execution and acknowledging the appellant's third-party claim, the court deferred possession by one week while directing the DRT to decide the title dispute on

What did the court decide?

Execution of possession deferred by one week; liberty given to move application before DRT; DRT directed to pass reasoned order.

Vijay Ganpati Pakhale versus Repco Home Finance Ltd. — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 494/2024 (Stay) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 111/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Vijay Ganpati Pakhale V/s.

¶6

Repco Home Finance Ltd.

¶7

… Appellant/s

¶8

…Respondent/s

¶9

Mr Gaurang Kinkhabwala along with Mr N. L. Karamchandani, Advocate for Appellant.

¶10

Mr Sunil Kadam, Advocate for Respondent Finance Company.

¶11

-: Order dated: 03/10/2024:-

¶12

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

¶13

The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 19.07.2024 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1227 of 2024 in Misc. Application (M.A.) No. 117 of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T.). It is seen that the D.R.T, by way of a cryptic and nonspeaking order in four lines, dismissed the application without delving into the merits of the rival contentions. Apparently, this order is not sustainable but the fact remains that the relief sought in I.A. No. 1227 of 2024 was to defer the taking over of possession scheduled on 19.07.2024, and it is seen that the possession was not taken on that date, and therefore, this prayer in I.A. No. No.1227 of 2024 has now become infructuous.

¶14

The appellant claims to be a third party who states that he has some

¶15

¶16

right title and interest in the subject property, and therefore, the respondent FI is not justified in taking possession of the property ignoring his rights over the property. It is submitted that the FI is attempting to take possession of the property once again on the 7^th instant and therefore, the appellant will have to move another application before the D.R.T. for the protection of his rights. Liberty is given to the appellant to move such an application and Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T. is directed to apply his mind to the contentions in the application, prima facie, and come up with a reasoned order in the matter, as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

Since the possession is scheduled on the 7^th instant, the appellant may not have time to approach the D.R.T. with an application for a stay. hence, the taking over of possession shall be deferred by another week.

¶18

With these observations, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of. Interlocutory applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

mks-07

Sd/-

Chairperson

Vijay Ganpati Pakhale v. Repco Home Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Ganpati Pakhale v. Repco Home Finance 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

Kamal Jagannath Jadhav versus Jm Financial Assets Reconstruction Company Limited

Karne Hospital Private Ltd. versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

Shri Raju Danial versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Krunal Prakash Ganatra` versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Prabhatabhai Rice Mill and Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Azure Auto Ind Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda