Dismissed

Raman Dharmpal Kapoor v. State Bank of India

DRT17 Apr 2023SA/358/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal at Aurangabad dismissed a securitisation application filed by a borrower against the State Bank of India. The court rejected arguments regarding suppression of facts and non-repayment, primarily due to lack of concrete settlement efforts before the court.

What did the court decide?

The securitisation application was dismissed; the amount deposited in the no lien account by the applicant is to be returned to the applicant along with accrued interest.

Raman Dharmpal Kapoor versus State 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

17.04.2023

¶4

Sr.	No.52	SA No.358/2022
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.358/2022 Raman Dharmpal Kapoor ..Applicant Versus State Bank of India ..Respondent Mr. K. B. Deshpande – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S. R. Deshpande – Advocate for the respondent no.1 & 2. Mr. V.B. Kulkarni – Advocate for the respondent no.3 & 4. Padmaja Pol, Authorised Officer of the respondent-bank. The matter is taken through VC. 1. In this matter the learned counsel for the applicant submits that they had faced difficulty and therefore the account became NPA and they could not repay the loan taken by them. Loan is admitted, liability is admitted, default is admitted.
		2. The counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondent-bank is guilty of suppressing material fact that the same property is mortgaged in another account which has not been intimated to them at all. So far as this present loan account is concerned this property has been sold in this and still something is outstanding. 3. This Tribunal has given enough opportunities and time to the applicants to settle this matter with the respondent-

¶5

[SBJ] (SA No.358/2022) Page 1 of 3

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶7

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

¶8

ORDER SHEET

¶9

bank however nothing concrete has come. Today the only argument is that they suffered losses and the respondentbank was guilty of suppressing fact of second mortgage / second charge.

¶10

1. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and 4 submits that the statement of the applicant’s counsel that today morning also the settlement talks have taken place is incorrect, he submits so on the instructions of the respondent no.3 and 4 with him on the VC.

¶11

1. In this matter the learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that enough opportunities have been granted to the applicants to redeem property. The respondent-bank was also ready and willing to redeem the property however payments has not been made by them of the entire amount as indicated in the orders and though the entire payment was to be made by 15^th December, 2022 but till date no further payment have been made, beside the payment made initially.

¶12

1. The counsel for the respondent-bank further submits that so far as allegation of suppression of material facts is concerned, the documents have been executed by the applicant and it is well being in his knowledge. However the second loan is not before me.

¶13

1. In these circumstances there is nothing in this Securitisation Application and the Securitisation Application stands dismissed.

¶14

1. In view of the above, I pass the following order through

¶15

[SBJ] (SA No.358/2022) Page 2 of 3

¶16

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER SHEET

¶19

video conferencing.
ORDER
A. Securitisation Application No.358/2022 stands
dismissed.
B. The amount which was deposited in the no lien account
by the applicant be returned to the applicant as it is
lying in the no lien account alongwith accrued interest.
C. Accordingly, all pending IAs stands disposed off.
D. File be consigned to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶20

[SBJ] (SA No.358/2022) Page 3 of 3

Raman Dharmpal Kapoor v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raman Dharmpal Kapoor 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apex Urban Co. Operative Bank of Maharashtra and Goa Limited versus Mumbai Zilla Madhyavarti Sah. Bank Maryadit

State Bank of India versus M/S Adarsh Agri Clinic Agri

Hanif Hayatsab Shaikh versus Bank of Baroda

Avinash Sajjanrao Kadam versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Mrs Chhaya Shashikant Dhalkari versus Canara Bank

Sfpl Crop Life Science Private Limited versus Union Bank of India