Disposed

Raj Shivcharan sharma v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRT24 Nov 2023SA/135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed an interlocutory application seeking removal of movable properties from a mortgaged flat by consent. Thereafter, the tribunal disposed of the main Securitisation Application pending before it along with all other pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application No.135 of 2023 stands disposed of with no order as to costs. All pending Interlocutory Applications are disposed of.

Raj Shivcharan sharma versus Dcb Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.902

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1851 of 2023

¶5

In SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.135 of 2023

¶6

Raj Shivcharan Sharma & Anr.

¶7

… Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

DCB Bank Ltd. & Ors. … Defendants

¶10

Mr Dilip Satala – Advocate for the applicants.

¶11

Mr Vinay Deshpande and Mr Rupak Sawangikar i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. – Advocates for defendant no.1.

¶12

None for other defendants.

¶13

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 24^th November 2023.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The applicants moved the application requesting the Tribunal to pass an order seeking co-operation and co-ordination from the secured creditor allowing them to remove the movable properties lying in the mortgaged flat. As of date, physical possession of the mortgaged flat is with the secured creditor.

¶16

The borrower refused to accept the service of the Interlocutory Application. The applicants’ counsel produced office copy of the letter dated 30^th November 2023, proof of dispatch and the print out

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

of the track report which reveals the defendants refused to accept the notice. Mr Deshpande, representing the secured creditor, submits that he has no objection in allowing the removal of the movable properties subject to the applicants sign the inventory list. The applicants’ counsel agrees to sign the inventory list and shall not claim any right in the mortgaged flat.

¶19

By consent, Interlocutory Application No.1851 of 2023 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶22

Radhika

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶25

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER) ORDER SHEET

¶26

24.11.2023

¶27

Sr. No.902

¶28

		SA No.135 of 2023
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.	Raj Shivcharan Sharma & Anr. Vs. DCB Bank Ltd. & Ors.
		Mr Dilip Satala – Advocate for the applicants. Mr Vinay Deshpande and Mr Rupak Sawangikar i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co. – Advocates for defendant no.1. None for other defendants.
		1. Order in Interlocutory Application No.1851 of 2023 passed separately. 2. The learned counsel for the parties now requests the Tribunal to dispose of the Securitisation Application. Based on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, Securitisation Application No.135 of 2023 stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 3. All pending Interlocutory Applications stands disposed of.
Radhika		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Raj Shivcharan sharma v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Shivcharan sharma v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/s Mahavir Enterprises

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/s Laxmi Agency

Baker Impex Private Limited versus Sicom Limited

Sharad Shivkumar Pawar versus the Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Icici Bank Limited versus Suraj Kailash

Pratiksha Enterprises versus Bank of Maharashtra