Disposed

Kale Ginning and Pressing Factory v. State Bank of India

DRT13 Mar 2023SA/114/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application, the applicant sought a stay on enforcement pending a civil suit disputing crop sale proceeds. The DTREE declined to stay enforcement but directed that possession must be taken only by a Tahsildar or District Magistrate's authorized officer. It disposed of the application, leaving acceptance of a partial deposit offer to the bank's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Stay on enforcement refused; secured by direction that possession be taken only by Tahsildar/District Magistrate's authorized officer; application disposed off.

1
S

3.03.2
r. No.

023
24 SA No.114/2022

Classifi
cation

No. of
Exh.

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.114/2022
Kale Ginning And Pressing Factory
..Applicant
Versus
State Bank of India and another
..Respondents
Mr. Ambadas Jadhav - Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. S.R.Deshpande h/for Mr. R.C.Patil – Advocate for the
respondent bank.
The matter is taken through VC
1. In this matter the learned counsel for the respondent bank
has drawn my attention to the para no.5 in order dated 29^th
April, 2022 passed by this Tribunal.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that one
Civil dispute is going on between the applicant and
respondent bank wherein the applicant claimed that the
cotton bells have been sold for a lessor amount and a claim
of Rs. 92 lacs have already been made in the said Civil
Suit.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that every
year the respondent bank has given an OTS proposal to the
applicant and now also the respondent bank has given an
OTS proposal for an amount of Rs. 60 lacs.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that till
decision of Civil Court the respondent bank shall be
restrained from taking action against the property.

5. In view of the above, I pass the following order : ORDER
A. In these circumstances stay cannot be granted till disposal of the Civil Suit or the bank cannot be restrained from taking action under Securitisation as prayed by the applicant. However, the possession has to be taken by the Tahsildar or Officer Authorised by the
Ld. District Magistrate and not by any delegated authority.
B. The bank shall insure that only Tahsildar/designated authority will have to take possession.
C. Nothing remain in the securitisation application as such Securitisation Application No. 114/2022 stands disposed off accordingly.
D. At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is ready and willing to deposit the part amount of OTS.
E. The Tribunal leave it on the bank that if the bank is ready and willing to accept the same, they may accept as per their own policy.
F. All pending IA in the proceeding, if any are disposed of accordingly.
G. File be consigned to the record room.
The parties may download the order from the official web-site.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

5. In view of the above, I pass the following order :
ORDER

A. In these circumstances stay cannot be granted till
disposal of the Civil Suit or the bank cannot be
restrained from taking action under Securitisation as
prayed by the applicant. However, the possession has to
be taken by the Tahsildar or Officer Authorised by the

Ld. District Magistrate and not by any delegated
authority.

B. The bank shall insure that only Tahsildar/designated
authority will have to take possession.

C. Nothing remain in the securitisation application as such
Securitisation Application No. 114/2022 stands disposed
off accordingly.

D. At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant
submits that he is ready and willing to deposit the part
amount of OTS.

E. The Tribunal leave it on the bank that if the bank is
ready and willing to accept the same, they may accept as
per their own policy.

F. All pending IA in the proceeding, if any are disposed of
accordingly.

G. File be consigned to the record room.

The parties may download the order from the official web-site.

(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

Kale Ginning and Pressing Factory v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kale Ginning and Pressing Factory 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Devendra Jagtap versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Jasbirkaur Tirlochansingh Bagga versus State Bank of India

Mr Feroj Ilaisab Bagwan versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Prakash Jaganath Ladwanjari versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Asha Balasaheb Ralebhat versus Canara Bank

Shri Nivrutti Haribhau Tupe versus State Bank of India