Naushad Ahmad v. Canara Bank (Syndicate Bank)
Case brief
What is this about?
The court disposed of the appeal filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. It held that since the securitization application remains pending before the Tribunal, the appellant has an effective remedy available there, rendering the current appeal unnecessary.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is disposed of. No further order as the remedy lies pending with the Tribunal below.
What the court decided
Appeal Dy. No. 1021/2024 Date: 07.03.2025
Naushad Ahmad Vs. Canara Bank
Present: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal below in S.A. No. 221/2017, whereby the stay application has been rejected.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that since the securitization application is still pending before the Tribunal below, therefore, there is remedy open to the appellant by filing appropriate application for redressal of his grievances before the Tribunal below against the interim order. If such application is filed before the Tribunal below, this Tribunal has no doubt that the Tribunal below shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law most expeditiously preferably on the same day or within a week thereafter.
In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is finally disposed off.
Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson
Anupam
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act should be allowed where the securities application is pending before the Tribunal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Naushad Ahmad
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · March
- CNR
- 091090010212024
- Bench
- Rajesh Dayal Khare
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court