Allowed

V S Engineers v. Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank

DRT9 Jan 2023CA/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the Chamber Appeal addressing the registrars observation that a securitisation application was stalling due to unremoved objections regarding caveat service. The Tribunal restored the application diary and directed the applicant to clear all objections within two days, discharging the caveator upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

The Chamber Appeal is disposed off; Diary No.906/2022 is restored; Applicant directed to remove objections within two days; Caveator discharged upon removal.

V S Engineers versus Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

09.01.2023

¶3

Sr. No.102 CHAMBER APPEAL NO.1/2023

¶4

Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		Chamber APPEAL No.1/2023
		V.S. Engineers ..Appellant Versus Nagar Urban Co-operative Bank ..Non-Appellants Mr. Parikshit Dawalkar – Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.R. Deshpande – Advocate for the Non-Appellant. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. In this matter the learned counsel appearing for the SA applicant submits that he was out of station from 10^th December to 17^thDecember, 2022 and as such he could not present before the Registry to remove the objections. 2. The matter was listed on 30^thNovember, 2022 and 17^th December, 2022 also. That time he was available but has not removed the objections. 3. The Registrar has noticed that there is an attempt by the applicant to stall the securitisation action initiated by the
		non-appellant bank and the present Securitisation Application Diary No.906/2022 is lying under objection for long just to get them listed if that proceeds with the securitisation action.
		4. The said observation of the Registrar is appropriate when the possession notice has been served the appellants have come up in this Chamber Appeal.

¶5

[SBJ] (Appeal No. 1/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶6

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

¶7

While dictating the order the counsel for the SA applicant made an attempt to interfere in the orders by submitting that they have not served the bank or any other person in the said Securitisation Application.

¶8

The counsel Shri S.R. Deshpande is present on behalf of the bank / caveator.

¶9

This is more serious thing that when a caveat has been filed the registry could not have accepted the pleadings without the caveator being served.

¶10

The Registrar to look into the matter that whether the caveat is there without service of the caveator the pleadings cannot be accepted. Since the counsel is submitting that it is his fault and he cannot tell his client to make the payment of another Rs.56,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Six Thousand) to file the fresh Securitisation Application and in the interest of justice this Chamber Appeal is allowed. Let him remove the objections within two days thereafter if the objections are removed the caveator is discharged.

¶11

¶12

The Chamber Appeal No.1/2023 is disposed off and the Diary (SA) No.906/2022 be restored .

¶13

10.The applicant is directed to remove all the objections before the registry within two days. (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶14

[SBJ] (Appeal No. 1/2023) Page 2 of 2

V S Engineers v. Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V S Engineers v. Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Kailas Giriraj Sharma versus Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

Narendra Bhagwatrao Kolapkar versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Diptesh Satish Sulakshane versus Icici Bank Limited

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vijaykumar and Company

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation versus Vanita D/o Arun Jagtap

Shri Yogeshwar Pundalik Rathod versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited