Dismissed

Mr Feroj Ilaisab Bagwan v. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

DRT22 Feb 2023SA/47/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this securitisation application, the applicant challenged possession orders on the grounds that possession was not taken due to lack of police protection, despite partial payment of the demand. The DRT, Aurangabad, held the challenge frivolous and the application infructuous as it was unnecessary to proceed given the lack of possession attempt.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.47/2023 stands dismissed as infructuous. It will be open for parties to settle.

Mr Feroj Ilaisab Bagwan versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

22.02.2023

¶4

Sr.	No.0	6 SA No.47/2023
Classific ation	No. of Exh
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.47/2023 Feroj Ilaisab Bagwan ..Applicant Versus Aspire Home Finance Corporation Ltd. ..Respondent Mr. Y.K. Bobade – Advocate for the applicant through VC. Mr. S.W. Munde – Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Akash Kamble, Authorised Officer of the respondent. The matter is taken through Hybrid hearing.
		1. In this matter the challenge is being made to the possession and 13(2) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate orders. Nothing is stated in the objections as to why
		those actions are not as per law. The only submission is that out of Rs.16 Lacs (Rupees Sixteen Lacs only) demand notice, which was issued way back in 24^thMay,
		2019 they have paid Rs.11 Lacs (Rupees Eleven Lacs only). 2. The counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has not come to take possession. However the counsel for the respondent and the authorised officer present on the VC who submitted that they had gone to take the
		possession but the possession was not handed over and since the police protection was not provided they could

¶5

[SBJ]

¶6

(SA No.47/2023) Page 1 of 2

¶7

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

¶8

not take the possession.
3. In these circumstances this Securitisation Application
become infructuous as only challenge remains to the
possession which is not being taken.
4. In view of the above, I pass the following order.
ORDER
A. The Securitisation Application No.47/2023 stands
dismissed as infructuous.
B. It will be open for the parties to settle this matter.
C. All pending IAs in the proceeding, if any are disposed of
accordingly.
D. File be consigned to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶9

[SBJ]

¶10

(SA No.47/2023) Page 2 of 2

Mr Feroj Ilaisab Bagwan v. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Feroj Ilaisab Bagwan v. Aspire Home Finance Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mesers Suraj Plastic versus Bank of Baroda

Union Bank of India versus Narayan Dashrath Bhalerao

Indian Bank versus Santosh Ashok Pradhan

Paldewar Prashant Agro Tech Private Limited versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Ahmednagar Merchant C operative Bank Limited versus Phonix Arc Private Limited

Deepak Devendra Jagtap versus The Malkapur Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.