Disposed

Aster Private Limited v. Idbi Bank

DRT22 Nov 2024MA/6/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an application to set aside an ex-parte order in an Original Application filed by banks for recovery. It directed the registry to delete the applicant's name from the recovery certificate and terminate proceedings based on the respondents' undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Direction to delete the applicant's name from the recovery certificate and terminate all recovery proceedings against him.

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY.TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE 22"d DAy oF, NovEMBei-, zozq PRESENT: sRI. GUMMAoT coprcxaru6 HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

MA. NO. 06 0F 2022 IN OA No. 336 OF 2019

¶3

Between

¶4

Mr. Ramesh Peddi, R/o. 401, Vaikunta Nivas Apartment, Navodaya Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana-500073.

¶5

....Applicant/s

¶6

And

¶7

IDBI Bank Ltd, 5-9-89 / lB2, Chapel Road, Hyderabad-500001. And others.

¶8

.... Respondent/s

¶9

DOCKET ORDER DT. 22.11.2024.

¶10

MA.No.6/2022:

¶11

This is an application filed by the petitioner/ defendant no.5 for setting aside the order and judgement dated 28.LO.2O2L passed exparte against the petitioner herein in CA.336/2019.

¶12

The petitioner is the defendant no.5 in OA.No.336/2019 and he averred th at the OA is filed by the respondents/ Applicants No.1 to 3 herein for recovery of amount from respondents No,4 to 9 herein.

¶13

The petitioner is the employee of RespoD4fl-me 19.12.2005 to 31.01,2016. During the said period,lf{p4ts, ted stamped agreement dated 05.03.2015 for p lt e daE.tFdgidr$ s haharffi atong'Q1tfu defenaants 'ir No.4 & 5. rhe petitioneT;",";; ;;.;'3.f6;i;;"HffiX,0',#[\ "."',,i" f.^{'* j'.} t:,:, i:11.^.JNolJzml ,rilll i1',..& --YaGY/ *x,EP

¶14

held by respondent no.5 in Respondent no.B which is 1000/o subsidiary of respondent no.4. The petitioner has not received any notice in the OA and he was set exparte. Hence there is a need to set aside the exparte order passed in OA,336/2019.

¶15

Respondents no.1 to 3 who are applicants in OA filed counter contending that the petitioner herein is not personal guarantor for the loans sanctioned to Respondent no.4 and he is only a share holder of single equity share of ABSPL, pledged in respect of loan of APL and has executed the pledge of shares agreement dated 05.03.2015 only in the capacity of pledger of an equity share of ABSPL, The said ABSPL was resolved under NCLT and the petitioner in compliance to the directions issued by Hon'ble NCLT transferred the singly equity share of ABSPL held by him to the successful resolution applicant on 2L.09.2023. The respondents No,1 to 3 have no objection to delete the name of the petitioner in the recovery certificate and terminate all recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Except the demand notice no steps were initiated under RP,

¶16

Heard the arguments.

¶17

Now the point for consideration is whether the^petitioner has established any ground for setting aside the exparte order dated 2B.IO.2O2I.

¶18

As per the record, it is clear that the respondents/^{applicantsNo. 1to 3} herein i.e., IDBI, SBI and PNB filed OA against^{defendants no.1 to 7 and the} petitioner is defendant no.5 in the OA.

¶19

The fact that the^petitioner herein is only a^{personal guarantorof} Respondent no.4 and he is having one^{share in ABSPL whichis pledgedin} respect of the loan of respondent^{no.4 is admitted by the respondentsno.1} to 3. Even the said one share^{was transferred to successful resolution} applicant as^per the directions of^{NCLT. As per the counter filed by the} respondents no.1 to 3, it is clear that the^{respondentsno. 1 to 3 haveno} objection for deleting the name of the^{petitionerin recovery certificateand} for terminating the recovery^proceedings against^him.

¶20

So in view of the undertaking name of petitioner from OA,

¶21

for deleting the exparte order 22^t.l0\l

¶22

passed in oA No.336 /2}tg. Suffice, if the^{name of the petitioner is deleted} from Recovery certificate.^{So this point is answeredaccordingly'}

¶23

In the result, MA.6/2022^{is disposed of with a direction to registry to delete} the name of the^{petitioner/defendant no.5 in the recovery certificateand} the concerned^{Recoveryofficer is directedto terminate all recovery} proceedings against the^{petitioner/defendantno'5herein'}

¶24

sd/Presiding Officer

¶25

ru&<br>j ?zilorlmr :
J-. -r (\ K"'
*.s i r
,i' ;-
qi'JX,llV'

¶26

TRUECOPY <br>,il,,f ut^.
/)"7; r t.r
'',i:;,'ul,#{^n; 1(' LP oo-( //' )

Aster Private Limited v. Idbi Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aster Private Limited v. Idbi Bank

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

State Bank of India versus Shree Ridhi Dhillod Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Circuit Computer Services

State Bank of India versus M/s. Santoshi Mata Auto Services

Aster Private Limited versus Idbi Bank

Bank of Baroda versus BBs Kesana Foods

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. a and a Marketing