Dismissed

Piyush Mobile Shopee v. State Bank of India

DRT20 Sept 2023SA/263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The debtor secured assets for the applicant defaulted and the advocate for the applicant conveyed that the account was classified as NPA and the bank complied with the guidelines as per his argument. The advocate for the State Bank of India opposed the grant of relief by the applicant as he has the financial capacity to satisfy the claim.

What did the court decide?

The Sri Piyush Mobile Shopee Securitisation Application No.263/2023 stands dismissed.

Piyush Mobile Shopee versus State Bank of India — Intellectual Property | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

20. Sr.	09.20 No.12	23 SA No.263/2023
Classifica tion	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.263/2023
		Piyush Mobile Shopee ..Applicant Versus State Bank of India ..Respondent Mr. Manoj Deshpande –Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.L. Muley – Advocates for the respondent. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. In this matter the counsel for the applicant submits that he was regularly paying till December-2022. The account was classified as NPA in March 2023 and 13(2) notice was issued on 04^thMay, 2023. 2. The only grievance made by him that the bank has not complied with the guidelines however there is nothing in the pleadings to show which guidelines are not followed. 3. Once the account turns NPA the course available to the bank is to take proceedings under RDBI Act or SARFAESI Act. The notice has been issued under 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and when no payment has been received by the bank, 13(4) proceedings have been carried out. There are no discrepancies being pointed out. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank appears on the VC submits that demand notice has been issued for two accounts totalling to Rs.21,80,039.18Ps. alongwith interest and charges. There are two properties mortgaged so the contention of the applicant there is only one residential house is also not correct.

¶3

[SBJ]

¶4

(SA No.263/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶5

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

¶6

ORDER SHEET

¶7

The counsel for the respondent-bank vehemently argues that no relief can be granted and if they wish, they can make payment.

¶8

I do not find any merit in the matter. Accordingly dismissed.

¶9

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

¶10

A. The Securitisation Application No.263/2023 stands dismissed.

¶11

B. File be consigned to the Record Room. (Vimal Gupta)

¶12

Presiding Officer

¶13

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶14

[SBJ]

¶15

(SA No.263/2023) Page 2 of 2

Piyush Mobile Shopee v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Mobile Shopee 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

Bank of Baroda versus Anil Dnyandev Chothe

Jatin Jogindra Batra versus Capri Global Capital Ltd.

Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus Ramesh Shrimantappa Gourshete

Satish Gautam Nikam versus Bandhan Bank Limited

Keshrnath Dashrath Karlae versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Mohd Farukh Haji Mohd Jafar versus State Bank of India