Hearing company secuitisation application where respondents objected on locus standi. Presiding Officer held there was no locus to the applicant and dismissed the application without going into merits.
Securitisation Application No.76/2023 stands dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications disposed off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD (BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
| 3 S |
0.08.2 r. No. |
023 89 SA No.76/2023 |
|---|---|---|
| Classifi cation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.76/2023 | ||
| Nilesh Muralidhar Rane ..Applicant Versus Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank & others ..Respondents |
||
| Mr. P.S. Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.J.Suryawanshi – Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. U.N. Shete – Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. Shambhuraje Deshmukh a/with Mr. S.R. Vakil – Advocate for the respondent no.5. The matter is taken through Video Conference. |
||
| 1. There is a preliminary objection taken by the Administrator of the respondent no.1 bank saying that the present applicant has no locus as the property belongs to the Karkhana and Karkhana is not before this Tribunal nor it made party in the present proceeding. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that when the sale took place there was no Administrator and Administrator appointed subsequently. However, if the securitisation application filed by the applicant on 24. 02.2023 challenging the sale dated 16.02.2023 is through Administrator only. 3. The statement made by learned counsel for the applicant is totally incorrect. At the very beginning the learned counsel for the Administrator has taken an objection that only four persons have filed the present securitisation application and they have no locus to challenge the action of the bank |
[APK] (SA No.76/2023) Page 1 of 2
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
| as the property belongs to the Karkhana and Karkhana is neither before this Tribunal nor it made party in the present proceeding. |
|---|
| 4. The Karkhana has no objection on the action of the bank. The Karkhana has not filed the securitisation application or has not challenged the action of the bank. There are near about thousand members of the bank who are neither the applicants nor the respondents in the present securitisation application. It is complete mis-joinder of the parties. |
| 5. The learned counsel for the respondent bank has taken strong objection on the point of locus to the applicants to file the securitisation application. Learned counsel for the auction purchaser submits that the averments made by the bank are correct. Without going in to the merits of the matter I do not find any locus to the applicant to file the present securitisation application. |
| 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order through video conferencing. ORDER |
| A. The Securitisation Application No.76/2023 stands dismissed. |
| B. Accordingly, all Interlocutory Applications pending if any stands disposed off. |
| C. Consign the file to the Record Room. |
(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad |
[APK] (SA No.76/2023) Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant had locus standi to file the securitisation application given that the property belonged to the Karkhana which was not a party.
Nilesh Muralidhar Rane
Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
