Tribunal considered an application for extension of time to pay a secured loan after the applicant breached a prior undertaking. Court held it could not compel the bank to accept a proposal and dismissed the appeal.
Application dismissed with costs made easy.
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.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)
Sr. No.908
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION
NO.31 of 2022
IN
SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.141 OF 2022
Mrs Sangeeta Bharat Jain & Ors. … Applicants Versus Union Bank of India & Ors. … Defendants
Mr Savita Nangare i/b Ms Pooja Kharat – Advocate for the applicants. Mr Jamshed Ansari – Advocate for defendants.
Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 18th July, 2022.
ORDER
Page 1 of 4
however, the Respondent no.1 has not informed name and details of the highest bidder. Aggrieved by the same, we have filed above SA before this Hon’ble Tribunal.
Page 2 of 4
undertaking and restrain the Respondent no.1 from taking any further steps under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, and/or from concluding sale conducted on 29th April 2022.
Page 3 of 4
Securitisation Application on 20th May 2022. Ms Nangare did not choose to advance any arguments concerning the maintainability of the application as the Tribunal became functus official. Ms Nangare advanced no arguments concerning further undertaking to make the timely payment or to convince defendant bank to make the payment as per the letter dated 8th July 2022. In the Tribunal’s view, the letter dated 8th July 2022 addressed by the applicants to defendant bank needs no interference by it. The Tribunal cannot compel the bank to accede to any reasonable offer made by the applicants.
Sd/-
Dhawale
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal can grant an extension of time for payment to an applicant who offered a proposal that requires the cooperation/consent of the respondent bank.
Whether an applicant who failed to pay under a previous undertaking can be granted another extension to pay the secured debt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pal Alloys & Metal India Private Limited and others Vs Allahabad bank and othersDistinguished¶29
Pal Alloys & Metal India Private Limited and others Vs Allahabad bank and others, 2021 SCC OnLine P&H 2733 · Who else cites this
Mrs Sangeeta Bharat Jain & Ors.
Union Bank of India & Ors.
Deepak M. Thakkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
