Quashed

Ms Stc Builders and Developers v. Maharastra Gramin Bank

DRT1 Jun 2024SA/170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal quashed the respondent bank's possession and subsequent actions taken in violation of Section 13(3-A) notice requirements and directed the bank to initiate fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.170/2024 disposed; all subsequent possession actions quashed; bank directed to remove auction boards and start fresh proceedings.

Ms Stc Builders and Developers versus Maharastra Gramin Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

01.06.2024

¶3

Sr. No.22 SA No.170/2024

¶4

Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.170/2024
		M/s. STC Builders and Developers ..Applicant Versus Maharashtra Gramin Bank ..Respondents Mr. A.A. Yadkikar - Advocate for the applicant Mr. J.R. Kalyankar – Advocate for the respondent bank. The matter is taken through Hybrid. 1. In this matter the admitted fact is that on 31^stJanuary, 2024, 13(2) notice was issued. The possession is taken on 01^stApril, 2024. The 13(2) notice has been served on both the parties present applicant and one guarantor by hand. 2. It is argued by the respondent bank that they have taken possession after expiry of 60 days. The bank has received and admitted that they have received the objection under Section 13(3-A) which admittedly have not been replied prior to proceed ahead. The respondent bank has proceeded ahead without complying the statutory obligation of replying 13(3-A) notice and any further action taken in furtherance is liable to be quashed and accordingly all the actions taken therefore
		stands quashed but the bank will be at liberty to start fresh proceeding after 13(2) notice under Section 13(4). 3. In view this, this Securitisation Application No.170/2024 stands disposed off.
		4. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the bank has put a big board at the outside of the

¶5

[SBJ] (SA No.170/2024) Page 1 of 2

¶6

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶7

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AURANGABAD)

¶8

ORDER SHEET

¶9

bank premises indicating the sale of this property.

¶10

Since the auction has already been cancelled by this Tribunal, it will be prudent for the bank to remove those boards.

¶11

In view of the above, I pass the following order.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

A. The Securitisation Application No.170/2024 stands disposed off. B. All subsequent actions taken by the bank including possession and same is hereby quashed. The bank will be at liberty to take fresh action under securitisation and cannot continue the earlier action.

¶14

C. Since the auction has already been cancelled by this Tribunal, it will be prudent for the bank to remove those boards.

¶15

D. Accordingly all the pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed off.

¶16

E. File be consigned to the record room. (Vimal Gupta)

¶17

Presiding Officer

¶18

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶19

[SBJ] (SA No.170/2024) Page 2 of 2

Ms Stc Builders and Developers v. Maharastra Gramin Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Stc Builders and Developers v. Maharastra Gramin Bank

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vasant Ramrao Khare (Deceased)

Punjab National Bank versus Raju Gulab Shaikh

Mrs Sapna Amit Pandit versus Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank

Mukesh Chhotelal Nagar versus Poonawalla Housing Finance Limited

Neelima Ganpat Gaikwad versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

State Bank of India versus Sanjay Adsul