Disposed

Mr Rajeshwar Hari Hattiambire v. Sriram City Union Finance Limited

DRT15 Jun 2024SA/180/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal Aurangabad disposed of Securitisation Application No.180/2023. The applicant, Rajeshwar Hari Hattiambire, disagreed with the respondent's calculation of liability. The Tribunal fixed an approximate award of Rs.1.32 Crores, directing the applicant to pay 10% immediately, 50% by September 30, 2024, and the balance by December 30, 2024, conditioned on providing three chequ

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to pay Rs.1.32 Crores in installments of 10% immediately, 50% by September 30, 2024, and 50% by December 30, 2024, via cheques endorsed by date 18 June 2024. If provided, respondent

Mr Rajeshwar Hari Hattiambire versus Sriram City Union Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

ORDER SHEET

¶3

1 S	5.06.2 r. No.	024 28 SA No.180/2023
Classifi cation	No. of Exh.
		SECURITIZATION APPLICATION No.180/2023
		Mr. Rajeshwar Hari Hattiambire ..Applicant Versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited & others ..Respondents Mr. S.R. Vakil - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Vinod Bhide - Advocate for the respondent nos.1 & 2. The matter is taken through Hybrid. 1. In this matter the counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that there is no CERSAI registration therefore securitisation action is bad in law. He further submits that they were disbursed only Rs.24 Lacs and odd amount (Rs.Twenty-Four Lacs and odd amount) and rest of the amount has been adjusted in the earlier loan account without consent.
		2. The counsel for the applicant further submits that there is an Award of Rs.72 Lacs (Rupees Seventy-Two Lacs only)
		alongwith the interest @ 18% from the year 2018. He submits that his client is ready and willing to pay the liability calculated at Rs.1.14 Crores (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lacs only). 3. The counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that said amount is not acceptable as liability is huge and CERSAI registration is there which has been called from

¶4

[SBJ] (SA No.180/2023) Page 1 of 3

¶5

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶6

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

¶7

ORDER SHEET

¶8

the office of the respondent.

¶9

1. The counsel for the respondent further submits that there is an undertaking dated 01^st February, 2024 wherein the applicant has undertaken to pay Rs.1.32 Crores (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Two Lacs only).

¶10

1. Both the parties are stick on their calculations and amount to be paid and received.

¶11

1. In these circumstances this Tribunal is of the opinion that this Rs.1.32 Crores (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Two Lacs only) is also the approximate amount which comes under award.

¶12

1. The applicant is hereby directed to pay Rs.1.32 Crores (Rupees One Crore Thirty-Two Lacs only) to the respondent out of which 10% to be paid immediately within 10 (ten) days. Total 50% amount to be paid by 30^th September-2024 including this 10% and balance amount of 50% by 30^th December, 2024. All the cheques to be given on or before 18^th June, 2024 with an undertaking that the cheques will be honoured.

¶13

1. If the applicant given undertaking and give above these three cheques, the respondent will not continue with the securitisation proceeding as of today and the possession shall not be taken today.

¶14

1. This Securitisation Application No.180/2023 stands disposed off with above orders .

¶15

[SBJ] (SA No.180/2023) Page 2 of 3

¶16

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER SHEET

¶19

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

¶20

11.File be consigned to the record room.

¶21

(Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer

¶22

Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad

¶23

[SBJ] (SA No.180/2023) Page 3 of 3

Mr Rajeshwar Hari Hattiambire v. Sriram City Union Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rajeshwar Hari Hattiambire v. Sriram City Union Finance 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

Shahada Taluka Doodh Utpadak Krushi Purak Sahkari Sangh Limited Shahada versus The Dhule and Nandurbar District Central Cooperative Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Narsingh

Bank of Baroda versus Pannageshwar Sugar Mills Limited

Bank of Maharashtra versus Prashant Durga Pawar

Bank of India versus Haribhau Natha Labade

Shambaba Cotton Industries versus Sangli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.