Disposed

Mrs Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde v. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRT12 Dec 2023SA/378/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Securitisation Application, the respondent bank withdrew a sale due to lack of sufficient notice. The tribunal disposed of the application as settled, exempted the borrower from bearing the notice expenses, and directed that 30 days' notice is mandatory for future sales.

What did the court decide?

The Securitisation Application dismissed as settled; bank expenses for notice not debited; 30-day notice mandatory for future sales.

Mrs Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

12. Sr.	12.20 No.16	23 SA No.378/2023
Classific ation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.378/2023 Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde ..Applicant Versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. ..Respondents Mr. Amit Yadkikar – Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.B.Chaudhari – Advocate for the respondent. The matter is taken through Video Conference. 1. The learned counsel for the respondent bank on instruction submits that they have not published the sale notice as per the rules. The sufficient notice of 30 days has not been given and as such they are withdrawing the same and not proceeding with the sale.
		2. The learned counsel for the respondent bank further submits that the applicants have only challenged the auction sale in the Securitisation Application as such Securitisation Application becomes infructuous and be disposed of. 3. In view of the above, I pass the following order : ORDER
		A. The Securitisation Application No.378/2023 stands disposed of as settled. B. The expenses incurred by the bank with regard to the sale notice shall not be debited in the account of the borrower. C. If the bank wish to proceed further with the sale they shall give 30 day’s notice.

¶3

[APK] (SA No.378/2022) Page 1 of 2

¶4

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

¶5

ORDER SHEET

¶6

D. At this juncture the learned counsel for the applicant submits that they have not been served with the 13(2) and 13(4) notice. With the consent of the parties the applicant is permitted to raise this objection in the pending Securitisation Application or in further Securitisation Application.

¶7

E. All pending IA in the proceeding if any are disposed of accordingly.

¶8

F. Consign the file to the Record Room and orders be uploaded on official web-site.

¶9

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶10

[APK] (SA No.378/2022) Page 2 of 2

Mrs Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde v. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Jyoti Dagdusaheb Shinde v. Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

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

Sacchidanand Bapurao Pande versus Central Bank of India

Saudagar shikur Majid versus Osmanabad Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S Aditya Ayurvedic

M s Shrikrushna Agency Prop Chandu Ramdas Kulkarni versus Union Bank of India

Lohiya Developers versus Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Limied

Canara Bank versus Mangalabai Santosh Chaudhar