Dismissed

Manoj Son of Shri Vishnu Lal Soni v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRT16 Dec 2024MA/71/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MA under Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking extension of time to deposit outstanding dues and interim stay on execution, holding legal heirs bound to comply with the original order.

What did the court decide?

Application for extension of time under Section 17 of RDB Act and interim stay on execution notice before the Tehsildar dismissed.

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF THE ORDER

REMARK

MA7U24
16fizt24

ShriPrabhatYadav,AdvfortheApplicant
ShriAdamyaBajpai,Advfbrthe
Respondent
l.Withconsentofboth thesideMAheard
finally.
2.ApplicantCounselinvitingattentionon
orderdated27108124passedunderSA
No.395i24 submitsthatthoughwith
consentorder hasbeenpassed however
duetodeadofLateShantiBaion
20108124^justbeforeaweekpassingthe
order Applicantcouldnotarrangethe
money and abletodeposittheamountas
perdirection of this Tribunal.
3.ApplicantCounselfurthersubmitsthat
Applicantwillingtodeposittheamount
andcomply the orderifsixmonthsmore
timebegiven tothem.

4.ApplicantCounselfurtherpraysfor
interimprotectionagainsttheexecution
noticeissuedbytheTehsildarRatlam
schedulingthedatefortakingpossession
today.

5. On the otherhand Respondent Counsel
againinvitingattentiononorderdated
27108124passedinearlier SAsubmits that
ApplicantCounselhimselfhasinvitedthe
orderapprising thatApplicantsarewilling
torepaytotaloutstandingandthe
Respondent
Bankhasapprisedtotal

DATE

DESCRIPTIONOFTHE ORDER

REMARK

outstandingRs.2lLaconthedateof
passingthe order.
6.RespondentCounselfurthersubmits
that theTribunalhasgivenchancethe
Applicantstodeposittheamountwithin
fourinstallmentseventhentilltoday
Applicantshavedeposited nothing.
7.OnthegroundRespondentCounsel
opposestheprayerforextensionoftime
andalsointerimprotection againstthe
executionnotice.
8.Afterhearingboth theside perusalof
record though asperdeadcertificateit
revealsthatSmt.ShantiBaiexpiredon
20108124before a weekpassingtheorder
however sinceinspiteofdeadofLate
ShantiBaiApplicantsidevoluntarily
invitedtheorderdated27108124theyare
obligetocomply thesamewithletterand
spiritwithinprescribedtimelimiteven
thenApplicantshavedepositednothing.

9.Perusaloforderitrevealsthatthis
Tribunalhasgiven libertytoRespondent
BanktoexecutetheorderifApplicants
remainfailtocomplytheorder.
10.InopinionofthisBenchnocaseis
madeouttoextendthe timeandinterim
protection.MAisdismissed.
(Ram Niwa
atel)
PresidingOfficer
DRT:JABALPUR
(M.P.&C.G.)

Manoj Son of Shri Vishnu Lal Soni v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Son of Shri Vishnu Lal Soni v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Hdfc Bank versus Gambhir

Bank of India versus Sunil Kadam

Bank of India versus Shri Kalu

Ravi Dongre So Late Pandhari Dongre versus Central Bank of India

Ms Anand Shri Fruit Bonanza versus Indusind Bank Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Bolbum Aloo Bhandar