Dismissed

Amol Sumant Bhakt v. Union Bank of India

DRT8 Nov 2023SA/356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT dismissed the application for condonation of delay. It dismissed the Securitisation Application because the sale had not taken place. The registry was directed to register the application specifically for a challenge to the sale notice.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory Application dismissed. Securitisation Application disposed of; registry directed to register restricted application.

Amol Sumant Bhakt versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

08.11.2023

¶4

Sr. No.25 Diary (SA)No. 806/2023 / SA No.356/2023 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1286/2023 IN

¶5

Diary (SA)No.806/2023

¶6

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.356/2023

¶7

Amol Sumant Bhakt ..Applicant Versus Union Bank of India ..Respondent

¶8

Mr. A.S. Sakhare - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. A.A. Mishra – Advocate for the respondent. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. In this matter the learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the Interlocutory Application No.1286/2023 there is a delay of 72 days. The delay is not properly explained.

¶9

1. The counsel for the respondent bank strongly opposes the same. Further it is submitted that the Securitisation Application has been filed against the sale notice issued by the respondent bank. He further submits that the sale has not taken place.

¶10

1. The Interlocutory Application No.1286/2023 for condonation of delay stands dismissed.

¶11

1. The Securitisation Application be registered qua only

¶12

[SBJ] ( Diary (SA)No.806/2023/SA No.356/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶13

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶14

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

¶15

ORDER SHEET

¶16

challenge to the sale notice. Since the sale has not taken
place the Securitisation Application has become
infructuous.
5. At this juncture, the counsel for the applicant submits that
the bank is taking action against the property which is not
completed by the builder. It is the risk of the respondent
bank. It is upto the bank if they wish to proceed ahead.
6. In view of the above, I pass the following order through
video conferencing.
ORDER
A. The Interlocutory Application No.1286/2023 stands
dismissed.
B. The Registry is directed to register the Securitisation
Application qua only challenge to the sale notice.
C. Accordingly, the Securitisation Application No.356/2023
stands disposed off.
D. File be consigned to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶17

[SBJ] ( Diary (SA)No.806/2023/SA No.356/2023) Page 2 of 2

Amol Sumant Bhakt v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Sumant Bhakt v. Union Bank of India

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

Mrs Nilofar Raheman Shaikh versus Icici Home Finance Company Limited

Bhumi Enterprises versus Godavari Laxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Manoj Narayan Adhane versus Adarsh Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Vinaykumar Rikhabchand Kothari versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Manda Dhondiba Barve versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ravindra Dattatraya Dahiwal