Dismissed

Karim Maheboob Sayed v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT13 Dec 2022SA/394/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's application to withdraw the Securitisation Application. Consequently, the Securitisation Application No.394/2022 was dismissed as the bank had recovered dues, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the Securitisation Application allowed. Securitisation Application dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications disposed off.

Karim Maheboob Sayed versus Dcb Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD) ORDER SHEET

¶2

13 Sr	.12.20 . No.06	22 SA No.394/2022
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1664/2022 IN SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.394/2022 Karim Maheboob Sayed ..Applicant Versus DCB Bank Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. S. G. Dodya – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. D.K. Thote – Advocate for the respondent-bank. The matter is taken up through VC. 1. By this interlocutory application the applicant bank seeks permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the present Securitisation Application. 2. The applicant therefore, seeks permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the Securitization Application since it is not in respect of the said Flat i.e. Flat No.B-5, at Second Floor, “Faiz Complex” alias “Taj Apartment”, situated at Taj Flat
		Owners Housing Society Ltd, Plot bearing CTS No.11898, Sheet No.330 and 336.
		3. The applicant has made out the case for withdrawal of the Securitisation Application. 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order through Video Conference: ORDER
		A. Interlocutory Application No.1664/2022 is allowed. Securitization Application No.394/2022 is dismissed as
J]		(SA No.394/2022) Page 1 of 2 the bank has recovered the dues and nothing remains to

¶3

[SBJ]

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶5

ORDER SHEET

¶6

be paid.

¶7

B. All the pending Interlocutory Applications in the Securitisation Application stand disposed off.

¶8

C. Consign the file to the Record Room.

¶9

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶10

[SBJ]

¶11

(SA No.394/2022) Page 2 of 2

Karim Maheboob Sayed v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karim Maheboob Sayed v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank versus Alok

State Bank of India versus Ms Gugleshwar Industries

State Bank of India versus M/s Bharat Entarprises

Ms Rajeshwar Krushiseva Kendra versus The Bhagyalaxmi Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sanjivani Health Center

Encore Assets Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Ambarwadikar Infrastructure Limited