Dismissed

Mayur Madhukar Amsule v. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

DRT6 Sept 2023SA/15/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal dismissed a security-related application as infructuous due to the lapse of the date for taking physical possession. Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of with a direction to approach the bank for settlement. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

No orders as to costs; pending interlocutory applications disposed off; direction to approach the bank for settlement.

Classifi
cation

No. of
Exh.

SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.15/2022

Mayur Madhukar Amsule and another
..Applicants
Versus
Aspire Home Finance Corporation Ltd.
..Respondents
Mr. K.G.Gaikwad – Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. B.R.Kedar – Advocate for the respondent bank
The matter is taken through VC/hybrid.
1. Mr. K.G.Gaikwad, Advocate appeared for the applicants
and has filed his vakalatnama (Exhibit-09) which is taken
on record.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant who appeared
earlier for the applicant was debarred from appearing
before this Tribunal. It was his duty under law to intimate
his clients that he cannot represent them before the
Tribunal. He must have informed the applicant that he
cannot appear before this Tribunal else it would be a
professional mis-conduct. The applicant has not taken
steps to get the matter transferred.
3. Moreover, this Tribunal has also issued public notice and
has put the same on the notice board and on e-DRT portal
of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also issued independent
notices to all the parties also.
4. The applicant remained absent since long. Today new
counsel for the applicant appeared and submits that he has
instructions to appear in the matter for the applicants and

submits that he has filed his vakalatnma.
5. Even otherwise the applicants have challenged the notice for taking physical possession and the date for taking physical possession i.e.26^thJune, 2023 is already gone.
As such the securitisation application becomes infructuous.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants want to settle the matter.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that nothing has been deposited by the applicants with the respondent bank.
8. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.15/2022 stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.
B. Accordingly, all Interlocutory Applications pending if any stands disposed off.
C. The applicants are directed to approach the respondent bank for settlement.
D. Consign the file to the Record Room.
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

submits that he has filed his vakalatnma.

5. Even otherwise the applicants have challenged the notice
for taking physical possession and the date for taking
physical possession i.e.26^thJune, 2023 is already gone.

As
such
the
securitisation
application
becomes
infructuous.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicants want to settle the matter.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that
nothing has been deposited by the applicants with the
respondent bank.

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

A. The Securitisation Application No.15/2022 stands
dismissed with no orders as to costs.

B. Accordingly, all Interlocutory Applications pending if
any stands disposed off.

C. The applicants are directed to approach the respondent
bank for settlement.

D. Consign the file to the Record Room.

(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

Mayur Madhukar Amsule v. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayur Madhukar Amsule v. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

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

State Bank of India versus M/S Shriram Trading Company

Canara Bank versus Balwant Santosh Patil

Maharastra Gramin Bank versus Maroti Kale

Ms Nath Industries through Its Partners Ganesh Asram Bobade Annasaheb Ganesh Bobade versus Priyadarshani Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Bandu Sadashiv Thombare versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Shri Adishakti versus Hdfc Bank