Allowed

Encore Assets Reconstructions Company Ptivate Limited v. Ambarwadikar Infrastructure Limited

DRT11 Jul 2022MA/53/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad allowed Miscellaneous Application 53/2022. The court modified an order stating that the account is not closed but shall be treated as settled per consent terms.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous Application No.53/2022 allowed; impugned order modified to treat account as settled per consent terms.

Encore Assets Reconstructions Company Ptivate Limited versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶3

ORDER SHEET

¶4

	11.07. Sr. No	2022 .33 MA No. 53/2022
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 53/2022 Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited. ..Applicant Versus Ambarwadikar Infrastructure Limited ..Respondent Mr. Archit Virmani – Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.D. Shinde – Advocate for the Respondents. Due to Covid 19 situation the matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. In this matter this Miscellaneous Application No.53/2022 has been moved for seeking modification of the order dated 21^stApril, 2022 passed in the Securitisation Application No.107/2017. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the SA-applicant submits that he has received the copy of this Miscellaneous Application recently and need to file the reply. 3. However, the only issue is recorded in the order is that the account is closed. Only the modifications have been sought is that the account is not closed that it is settled as per the Consent Terms and will be dealt with as per the consent terms. 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER A. Accordingly this Miscellaneous Application No.53/2022 is allowed.

¶5

[SBJ] (MA No.53/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶7

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶8

ORDER SHEET

¶9

B. The order stands modified. The averment that the account stand closed is not to be considered and it shall be noted that the accounts get settled and shall be dealt with as per the consent terms.

¶10

C. File be consigned to Record Room.

¶11

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶12

[SBJ] (MA No.53/2022) Page 2 of 2

Encore Assets Reconstructions Company Ptivate Limited v. Ambarwadikar Infrastructure Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Encore Assets Reconstructions Company Ptivate Limited v. Ambarwadikar Infrastructure Limited

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Abdul Azim Aansar

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Vinod Vishwanath Wani

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Chandrakant Bansidar Bhalekar

State Bank of India versus Shri Ganesh Agencies

Dnyneshwar Kachru Apshinde versus Shivaji Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Prashant Kailas Sokatkar versus Shivaji Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.