Dismissed

Sachitanand Sahebrao Khalse v. Shubham Housing Development Finance Company

DRT20 Apr 2023MA/22/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT dismissed an application challenging a securitisation proceeding. The applicant claimed failure to receive notices and dispute over settlement terms. The court dismissed the plea, granting liberty to file a fresh application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to move fresh securitisation application and liberty to raise all objections raised in the present application.

Sachitanand Sahebrao Khalse versus Shubham Housing… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶2

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

¶3

ORDER SHEET

¶4

20 Sr	.04.20 . No.3	23 9 MA No.22/2022
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.22/2022 Sachitanand Sahebrao Khalse ..Applicant Versus Shubham Housing Development Finance Company ..Respondent/s Mr. S.G. Dodya - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Bobby Agrawal – Advocate for the respondent. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. In this matter the learned counsel for the applicant argues the matter submits that the notices were not issued so he was under the impression that the matter will not be taken up. 2. Whereas the counsel for the respondent-company submits that the summons was issued and the learned counsel
		appearing today in the matter for the applicant was present in the court and has taken a short adjournment. 3. The counsel for the applicant further submits that this Securitisation Application was dismissed in Covid period. He was given an option to keep this MA pending and approach the respondent-company for settlement by paying Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) down payment. He
		submits that he has already paid Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees

¶5

[SBJ] (MA No.22/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶6

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

¶7

ORDER SHEET

¶8

Five Lacs only) and the respondent-company has not agreed for the same with the securitisation proceeding. 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER A. Miscellaneous Application No.22/2022 stands dismissed with a liberty to move fresh securitisation application in case the respondent proceeds ahead.

¶9

B. The applicant is hereby given a liberty to raise all the objections raised in the present securitisation application. C. File be consigned to the record room.

¶10

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶11

[SBJ] (MA No.22/2022) Page 2 of 2

Sachitanand Sahebrao Khalse v. Shubham Housing Development Finance Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachitanand Sahebrao Khalse v. Shubham Housing Development Finance Company

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

Maruti Tyres versus Bank of Baroda

Sadguru Polyflim Industries versus Canara Bank

Suvarna Vilas Pardeshi versus Union Bank of India

Sanjay Sardar Pawara versus State Bank of India

Ratan Kondiba Dhongade versus State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Padmakar Madan Ingle