Dismissed

Mangalam Garments v. the Nasik Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

DRT13 Jul 2023SA/131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitization application, the applicant was absent and no clarification was provided by the respondent regarding forcible repossession of assets despite High Court restoration orders. The application was dismissed and pending interlocutory ones disposed off.

What did the court decide?

Securitization Application No.131/2023 dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed off.

1
S

3.07.2
r. No.

023
66 SA No.131/2023

Classifi
cation

No. of
Exh.

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.131/2023

Mangalam Garments
..Applicant
Versus
The Nasik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd.
..Respondent

None for the applicant.
Mr. Harish S. Adwant h/for Mr. S.V. Adwant – Advocate for
the respondent-bank.
The matter is taken through VC/hybrid.
1. In this matter notices were issued on 11^thMay, 2023.
Service affidavit has not been filed. None appears for the
applicant.

2. In this matter the learned counsel appears for the
respondent no.1 submits that the possession which was
taken by the bank on 06^thAugust, 2022 on the direction of
the District Magistrate was forcibly repossessed by the
applicants herein against which a writ petition was
preferred before the Hon’ble High Court against which
ordered the possession to be restored to the bank.

3. The relevant orders of the Hon’ble High Court are
reproduced in which the Hon’ble High Court has ordered
as under.

“The respondent No.2 the Tahsildar Jalna is directed to
execute the orders passed by the District Magistrate and restitute the possession of the secured assets to the bank within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. There a cost was also imposed on the respondent nos.5 and 6 of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only).
4. In these circumstances as none appears today, no
clarification has come forward, this Securitisation Application stands dismissed.
5. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.131/2023 stands dismissed.
B. Accordingly all the pending Interlocutory Applications stands disposed off.
C. File be consigned to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

“The respondent No.2 the Tahsildar Jalna is directed to

execute the orders passed by the District Magistrate and
restitute the possession of the secured assets to the bank
within a period of 30 days from the date of the order.
There a cost was also imposed on the respondent nos.5 and
6 of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only).

4. In these circumstances as none appears today, no

clarification has come forward, this Securitisation
Application stands dismissed.

5. In view of the above, I pass the following order through
video conferencing.
ORDER

A. The
Securitisation
Application
No.131/2023
stands
dismissed.

B. Accordingly all the pending Interlocutory Applications
stands disposed off.

C. File be consigned to the record room.

(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

Mangalam Garments v. the Nasik Merchants Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalam Garments v. the Nasik Merchants Cooperative 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

Bank of India versus Prakashchandra

Bank of Maharashtra versus M/S Rohini Masala Industries

Devendra Chudaman Patil versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Shital Pramod Shinde

Savita Sanjay Dhakane versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Rajdeep Cotton Industries versus Union Bank of India