Debts Recovery Tribunal-I Hyderabad dismissed an application seeking stay of auction proceedings, holding the applicant failed to establish bonafides after prior notice of non-compliance with deposit conditions. Requested show cause only.
Stay application dismissed; proceedings subject to result of appeal; no stay granted.
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.
THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 2oth DAy OF, SEPTEMBER 2022 PRESENT: SRI. GUMMADI GOPICHAND HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER
IA. NO. ,-266 0F 2022 IN
sA. NO. 178 0F 2022
Between
M/s. Neemax Enterprises, R/o, H.No.6-3-670, 6th Floor, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.
....Applicant/s
And
Union Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch, 3'o Floor, Andhra Bank Building, Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad-500095. And others.
.... Respondent/s
DOCKET ORDER DT.20.O9.2022.
IA.No.1266/22 is an apprication seeking stay of ail further proceedings including possession and sale of the schedule properties fixed on 2L.09.2022 pursuant to the Sale Notice dt. 02.09.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank
It is contended by the ld, counsel for the petitioner that without following the due procedure, the Respondent Bank is again proceeding for sare of the schedule properties. The Bank failed to serve the sale noiice nor affixed the same on the schedule property.
Heard ld. counsel for thepetitioners. Ld. counsel for the Respondent bank requested time to file counter while vehemently opposing for grant of stay.
is clear that this Tribunal has granted interim stay {eib da+ in LA.87O/22 pursuant to the Sale Notice dt. .06.2072. deposit of Rs.1 crore in two instalments on or 79.O8.2022. ittedly, the Petitioner had paid 1.t instalment of mply with the 2nd part of conditional order dt.
,
2
13'06'2022. Hence the petitioner is not entitred to seek stay again as he failed to prove his bonafides.. Rccoroingty,-'- there are no merits in the present apprication and as such, the saire is dismissed. r-ro*"r"r,-in"' .ur" proceedings if any, in respect of the schedule properties pursuant to the Auction Notice dt. 02.09.2022 shall be suU;ect to the result of SA.
Post the matter on 10.10,2022 for firing counter in 1.A.L268/22 and arso for filing reply by R2 to R4.
sd/-
Presiding Officer
.raiii'\f ii-r'. -
.*'e-*Au .y9,.
..,',, ;jr
!if, ii,.
lr
S;p
t
t0 stPm
TRUE CCII]Y
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek a stay again given prior failure to prove bonafides by deposit of money.
M/s. Neemax Enterprises
Union Bank of India
Sri. Gummadi Gopichand
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
