Dismissed

Mannukumar Maganlal Jhawar v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRT13 Jun 2024SA/101/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad dismissed the Securitisation Application filed by the applicant against Bank of Maharashtra. The court found no discrepancies in the bank's actions regarding the notice under Section 13(8). Pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application dismissed; respondent bank permitted to accept balance amount and refund excess; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Mannukumar Maganlal Jhawar versus Bank of Maharashtra — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶3

ORDER SHEET

¶4

13. Sr.	06.20 No.42	24 SA No. 101/2024
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SA No.101/2024
		Mannukumar Maganlal Jhawar ..Applicants Versus Bank of Maharashtra ..Respondents Mr. Tushar Daware h/for Mr. P.S. Gaikwad – Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Ashok Tamboli - Advocates for the respondent bank. The matter is taken through Hybrid. 1. In this matter the counsel for the applicant submits that they want to settle this matter with the respondent bank. 2. However the counsel for the respondent bank submits that despite repeated request they have not come forward to liquidate their dues and after a publication of notice under Section 13(8) they cannot even liquidate that property or their account.
		3. The counsel for the respondent bank further submits that
		there is no ambiguity being shown in the securitisation proceedings taken by the respondent bank and requests for dismissal of the Securitisation Application.
		4. I have gone through the complete paper book and also have seen the documents. There are no discrepancies in
		the action taken by the respondent bank. This Securitisation Application stands dismissed.

¶5

[SBJ] (SA No.101/2024) Page 1 of 2

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶7

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)

¶8

ORDER SHEET

¶9

In view of the above, I pass the following order.
ORDER
A. This Securitisation Application No.101/2024 stands
dismissed.
B. The respondent bank is at liberty to proceed ahead,
accept the balance amount from the purchaser and
continue with the proceeding and if any excess amount is
there that should be refunded to the owner of the
property.
C. Accordingly all the pending Interlocutory Applications
stand disposed off.
D. File be consigned to the record room.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶10

[SBJ] (SA No.101/2024) Page 2 of 2

Mannukumar Maganlal Jhawar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mannukumar Maganlal Jhawar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Ramchandra Marotirao Hendre (Deceased)

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Shailesh Krishi Seva Kendra

Bank of Maharashtra versus Krishna Babanrao Pere

Bank of Baroda versus Summayya Fatema Liyaqat

Bank of Baroda versus Jyotideep and Sons Logistics

Aasawa Brothers Corporate Avenue versus Union Bank of India