Partly allowed

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

DRAT14 Feb 2025MISC APPEAL/7/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

D.R.T. Mumbai granted protection for appellants who complied with appeal conditions. The court disposed of the appeal by directing the Debts Recovery Tribunal to dispose of the main Securitisation Application within three months and extending interim protection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to D.R.T.-II, Ahmedabad to dispose of S.A. No. 321/2019 within three months; interim protection continued for three months or until disposal.

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products versus Rajkot Nagrik… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 07/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶7

Ms. Neeta Pandit, Advocate for Appellants appeared through a Video Conference.

¶8

Mr. Janak Shah, Advocate for Respondents appeared through a Video Conference.

¶9

The appellants are in appeal impugned the order dated 12.09.2023 in Interlocutory Application No. 2794/2023 in Securitisation Application No. 321/2019 on the files of the Debt Recovery TribunalII, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) wherein the appellants had sought interim relief seeking protection from taking over possession of the secured assets u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 ( “SARFAESI Act” for short) but by the earlier order dated 04.09.2020 the interim relief was declined and therefore, the appellants filed I.A. No. 2794/2024 seeking the preponement of the S.A. to be heard expeditiously and till disposal of the S.A. to maintain an interim relief protecting their possession of the secured assets. The Ld. Presiding Officer had vide the impugned order declined to postpone the hearing of the S.A. and dismissed the application for an earlier hearing. The 1

¶10

appellant, therefore, came in appeal.

¶11

The appellants have already complied with the order of this Tribunal and made the pre-deposit for entertaining appeal and in consequence of the pre-deposit being made the appellants were granted protection.

¶12

Subsequently, the appeal was taken on and listed for hearing.

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appeal may be disposed of with the direction to the D.R.T. to dispose of the S.A. itself on merits as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants sought time to get specific instructions on this submission made by the respondents. However, it is pertinent to note that the appellants had themselves approached the D.R.T. with an application to expeditiously dispose of S.A. and therefore, there could never be any grouse about the submissions made by the respondent for expeditious disposal of the S.A.

¶15

Under the circumstances, I find that this Miscellaneous Appeal needs to be disposed of with the direction to the D.R.T.-II, Ahmedabad to dispose of the S.A. No. 321/2019 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. The interlocutory protection granted to the appellants shall continue for three months or till disposal of the S.A., which ever is earlier.

¶16

psa-24

¶17

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. versus Sunita Tarachand Khurana

Bhupesh Son of Bharatkumar Buddhadeo versus Union Bank of India

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited versus Mr Rajesh N Mewawala and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Krishna Ramchandra Shinde

Mrs.Poonam Rajeev Pathak versus Bank of India

Aarti Gunjikar versus Idbi Bank Ltd.