Disposed

Shri Lokesh Janardhan Waghmare v. Union Bank of India

DRAT22 Feb 2024MISC APPLICATION/19/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matter regarding the disposal of a stay appeal by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal regarding the taking over of possession by a bank, the Appellant filed an Independent Application seeking clarification on the status of an earlier stay order and to prevent immediate dispossession. The Court dismissed the application as being filed with a delay of 150 days, noting the Appellant failed to

What did the court decide?

Directed Presiding Officer to dispose of S.A. No. 86/2021 within one month; deferred taking over of possession pending disposal; protection granted till disposal of the appeal.

Shri Lokesh Janardhan Waghmare versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 134/2024(CoD)

¶3

¶4

M.A. No. 19/2024 In

¶5

Misc. Appeal No. 123/2022

¶6

Between

¶7

Lokesh Janardhan Waghmare … Appellant/s V/s. Union Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

Mr Vipin Chandra i/b Mr Nainesh Amin, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Bank.

¶10

Mr Rajesh K. Thakkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

-:Order dated: 22/02/2024:-

¶12

This Tribunal had as per the order dated 18.08.2023 directed the D.R.T., Nagpur to dispose of S.A. No. 86 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the receipt of the copy of the order. It is indicated that the copy of the order was not communicated and neither parties also produced the order before the Tribunal. Hence, the matter was not posted within three months as directed. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant had subsequently produced a copy of the order in January before the Tribunal and the bank has also issued a notice of dispossession to the Appellant. He has, therefore, come up with this application for clarifying the order dated 18.08.2023 which does not specifically mention that there is a stay granted till disposal of the S.A. It is

¶13

¶14

pertinent to note that this Tribunal had in an earlier order dated 27.07.2022 on condition of depositing the pre-deposit amount granted a stay till further order. That order of stay was not vacated till the appeal was disposed of and the amount is still lying with this Tribunal. The intention was that the S.A. be disposed of as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months, so that all the contentions of the parties could be sorted out before the D.R.T. However, there was no specific direction as granted by the Tribunal earlier. The Appellant should have moved before this Tribunal for a review of the order which he did not do within the stipulated time. This application is now filed with a delay of 150 days. Therefore, it cannot be considered. However, a direction of this Tribunal to dispose of the S.A. within three months has already expired. Therefore, endeavour shall be made by the Ld. Presiding Officer to dispose of the S.A. within one month from today. Till that time, the taking over of possession shall be deferred. The protection is granted till the disposal of the S.A. within

one month.

mks-17

Sd/Chairperson

Shri Lokesh Janardhan Waghmare v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Lokesh Janardhan Waghmare v. Union 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

indiabulls housing finance limited versus Royal Traders

indiabulls housing finance limited versus Royal Traders

indiabulls housing finance limited versus Royal Traders

Sandeep Umakant Thadeshwar versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Reynold Shirting Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Virendra Dileeprao Pawar versus Housing Devlopment Finance Corporation Limited