Dismissed

Sanjay So Parsaram Ghatolkar v. State Bank of India

DRT6 Jun 2023MA/3/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the applicant's application for restoration of a Securitisation Application, citing the applicant's forceful re-entry into the property previously taken possession of by the respondent-bank as disqualifying conduct.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous Application No.3/2022 dismissed. Bank at liberty to consider O.T.S. independently. Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Sanjay So Parsaram Ghatolkar versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

06.06.2023

¶4

S	r. No.3	5 M.A No.3/2022
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.3/2022
		Sanjay S/o Parsaram Ghatolkar ..Applicant/s Versus
		State Bank of India ..Respondent/s
		Mr. Shrigopal G. Dodya – Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.L. Muley - Advocate for the respondent-bank. The matter is taken through Video Conference.
		1. In this matter the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that they have moved this Miscellaneous
		Application for restoration of their Securitisation
		Application No.7/2015 on the ground that the bank has not considered the one time settlement proposal on the ground
		that nothing has been deposited. He points out that
		Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) deposited by
		them was ordered to be taken as 10% amount for
		consideration.
		2. Today the learned counsel for the respondent-bank has
		appraised this Tribunal that the physical possession of the
		property was taken by the respondent-bank but the
		applicants have forcefully re-entered into the premises.
		3. In these circumstances, looking to the conduct of the
		applicant, I am not interested in restoring the
		Securitisation Application No.7/2015. This Miscellaneous
		Application No.3/2022 stands dismissed.

¶5

[SBJ] (MA No. 3/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD

¶7

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

¶8

ORDER SHEET

¶9

In view of the above, I pass the following order through
video conferencing.
ORDER
A. The Miscellaneous Application No.3/2022 stands
dismissed.
B. The respondent-bank is at liberty to consider the one time
settlement of the applicant if he approaches the
respondent-bank.
C. All the pending interlocutory applications stands disposed
off accordingly.
D. Consign the file to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶10

[SBJ]

¶11

(MA No. 3/2022) Page 2 of 2

Sanjay So Parsaram Ghatolkar v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay So Parsaram Ghatolkar v. State Bank of India

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

Shanti Laghu Udyog versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Mrs Kavita Wo Ganeshrao Burade versus Mahindra Rural Home Finance Limited

Gulam Ali Khan Abdul Hameed Khan Through his legal heirs versus Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Arjun Dyandeo Darade

Canara Bank versus Samarth Flour Mill

Jeev Urja Pvt. Ltd. versus Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Limited