Hdfc Bank Ltd. v. Tushar Atmaram Kalate
Case brief
What is this about?
The Appellate Tribunal rejected an interlocutory application for interim relief due to incomplete and incorrect descriptions of parties in the application, requiring the appellants to file a fresh application in the correct format.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson
I.A. No. 501/2026 (Stay)
In Misc. Appeal No. 117/2026
Between HDFC Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s. Tushar Atmaram Kalate & Ors. …Respondent/s -: Order dated: 20/08/2026: -
- Present as under:
Mr. Ismail Nasikwala, Counsel for Appellant/Bank. Mr. S.R. Kakade, Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 2/Purchaser. Mr. Rajesh Nagory, Counsel for Respondent No.3.
- The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by the appellant for seeking urgent relief.
- Heard I.A. No. 501/2026.
- Considered and perused the records.
- At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents would raise a preliminary objection that, in the array of parties in I.A. No. 501/2026, Respondent No. 4 is described as a firm, however, it is not stated whether the said firm is a proprietorship firm or a partnership firm, nor the names of the proprietor or partners are stated.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an interlocutory application for interim relief can be heard when the array of parties contains incomplete descriptions and wrong names.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
HDFC Bank Ltd.
- respondent
Tushar Atmaram Kalate
- respondent
Respondent No.1
- respondent
Respondent No.2
- respondent
Respondent No.3
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court