DT Pune allowed an application for restoration of a dismissed Securitisation Application under SARFAESI Act, accepting the client's counsel's medical incapacity as valid grounds, subject to payment of costs.
Restoration of Securitisation Application No.207/2018 subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- to PM's Relief Fund; Status Quo Order extended.
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.
Presented on: 06.10.2022 Registered on: 06.10.2022 Decided on: 16.12.2022 Duration: Y M D
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT PUNE (Before Shri Dilip G. Murumkar, Presiding Officer) MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.60/2022
Versus
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 1 of 8
situated at Plot No.4/4, Sector-5, Navi Mumbai – 400 703.
…Opponents
APPEARANCES
For the Applicants Mr. Umesh G Dindore - Advocate For Opponent Nos.1 & 2 Mr. Tejas Lunia i/b Thodur Law Associates - Advocate For Opponent No.3 Mr. Vallabh S Tokekar - Advocate
JUDGMENT (Delivered on 16th December, 2022)
The applicants have filed SA No.207/2018 challenging measures adopted by opponent bank under the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `SARFAESI Act’). In the said Securitisation Application the applicants had moved IA Nos.395/2021 and IA No.396/2021 against the opponent bank and this
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 2 of 8
Tribunal had passed Status quo order on 30th October, 2021. The opponent bank challenged that order by filing Misc. Appeal No.41/2022 before Hon’ble DRAT, Mumbai which disposed of the Appeal with direction to this Tribunal to decide the SA No.207/2018 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, SA No.207/2018 was kept for final hearing on 19th September, 2022. On that date, the applicants sought adjournment on account of absence of their Advocate. Therefore, it was posted on 28th September, 2022. On that date, the applicants again sought adjournment by filing adjournment application which was rejected and on the same date this Tribunal dismissed the Securitisation Application for want of prosecution. Therefore, the applicants have moved the present application for restoration of SA No.207/2018.
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 3 of 8
and therefore, he could not remain present before this Tribunal and other Tribunals. They came to know from the Advocate that he was not willing to disclose his ailment and was under expectation that Securitisation Application will not be dismissed.
On these facts and grounds the applicants have claimed relief of restoration of Securitisation Application by setting aside order of dismissal passed on 28th September, 2022 and also sought relief of Status Quo Order.
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 4 of 8
of Advocate is very strange. The said stand taken by the applicants is fraudulent one. The applicants have not come to this Court with clean hands.
Points:
Findings:
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 5 of 8
2. Point No.2 – As per final order.
Reasons
That apart, Advocate Mr. Suresh P. Pandav of the applicants has filed Affidavit produced along with List
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 6 of 8
(Exhibit-15) which contends his illness and inability to attend the Court for hearing.
Hence by answering these points accordingly, I pass the following order:
ORDER
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 7 of 8
Order dated 28th September, 2022 of dismissal of the same subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) to be paid to Prime Minister’s Relief Fund within ten days from today.
(C) The payment of cost is pre-condition for restoration of SA No.207/2018. (D) Status Quo Order in respect of suit property be extended till restoration of SA No.207/2018.
Pronounced in open Court.
Sd/(Dilip G. Murumkar) Place : Pune Presiding Officer Date: 16.12.2022 Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune
[kaur] (MA No.60/2022) Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether grounds for restoration of a Securitisation Application dismissed for want of prosecution due to the advocate's medical illness are sufficient?
What order ought to be made in the Miscellaneous Application?
Palm Kernel India Ltd.
Arunkumar Sinha
M/s. Aar Aqua Culture Co.
Dilip G. Murumkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
