Partly allowed

Kailas Giriraj Sharma v. Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

DRT4 Jan 2023SA/4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed the applicant to deposit 25% of the notice amount and undertake to clear liabilities, after which the respondent公司在收回占有权之前不得采取行动；该收回权受 pending partition suit 限制，从而拒绝了 Securitisation Application No.4/2023。

What did the court decide?

Deposit of 25% of the notice amount with an undertaking to clear liabilities; possession withheld pending partition suit outcome.

Kailas Giriraj Sharma versus Fullerton India Home Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

	04.01 Sr. N	.2023 o. 01 SA No.4/2023
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.4/2023
		Kailas Giriraj Sharma & others ..Applicants Versus Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd. and others ..Respondents Mr. M.G. Deokate – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. R.S. Gangakhedkar - Advocate for respondent-company. The matter is taken through VC. 1. In this matter issue notice to the respondents.
		2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- company accepts the notices. 3. The main grievance of the applicant is that this property was purchased by his father in 1962 in the name of his brother who was minor at that time. He further submits that one of his real brother has filed a partition suit in 2017 where he is one of the defendants.
		4. The present applicant has not challenged the said sale deed being benami transaction though they had ample opportunities since their brother became major having enjoyed the fruits of the property since so long they are given an option to liquidate the liability to step into the shoes of the respondent No.1 to claim their right on the property. If they clear the liabilities of the respondent- Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd they will get a right of subrogation. The possession is scheduled on 17^thJanuary, 2023.

¶3

[SBJ] (SA No.4/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶5

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

¶6

ORDER SHEET

¶7

There is ample time for the applicant to approach the respondent-Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd. and liquidate the liability step into their shoes.

¶8

In these circumstances, it is ordered that if the applicant pays 25% of the 13(2) notice amount before taking the possession and undertakes to clear the liabilities of the respondent-Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd. either under One Time Settlement or otherwise, the respondent-Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd., will not proceed ahead otherwise the respondentFullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd., will be at liberty to proceed ahead.

¶9

The rights of the respondent-Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd in taking the possession and executing the same shall be the subject to the partition suit if they are made party there.

¶10

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

¶11

A. The Securitisation Application No.4/2023 stands disposed off.

¶12

B. All interlocutory applications stands disposed off accordingly.

¶13

C. File be consigned to the record room. (Vimal Gupta)

¶14

Presiding Officer

¶15

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶16

[SBJ] (SA No.4/2023) Page 2 of 2

Kailas Giriraj Sharma v. Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailas Giriraj Sharma v. Fullerton India Home Finance Company Limited

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

Narendra Bhagwatrao Kolapkar versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Diptesh Satish Sulakshane versus Icici Bank Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Rameshwar

V S Engineers versus Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank

Union Bank of India versus M/S Vijaykumar and Company

Maharashtra State Financial Corporation versus Vanita D/o Arun Jagtap