Partly allowed

Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRT3 Jun 2024SA/281/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the defendants' application to dispose of an unsigned Securitisation Application (No.281 of 2023) as infructuous. The court noted that after related writ proceedings compelled possession delivery, the secured creditor auctioned the flats, sold them, issued the sale certificate, and handed over possession. The applicant took no steps to record these subsequent ev

What did the court decide?

Securitisation Application No.281 of 2023 dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. versus Edelweiss Asset… — Company and Corporate | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.2

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.1131 of 2024 In

¶5

SECURITISATION APPLICATION

¶6

NO.281 of 2023

¶7

Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Edelweiss ARC Ltd. & Anr. … Defendants

¶10

None for the applicants.

¶11

Mrs Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for defendants.

¶12

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 3^rd June 2024.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The secured creditor moved the application styled as Interlocutory Application requesting the Tribunal to dismiss the Securitisation Application as infructuous.

¶15

The defendants’ counsel drew the Tribunal’s attention to the order dated 26^th July 2023 passed by this Tribunal against which the applicants preferred Writ Petition (L) No.20530 of 2023. On 19^th August 2023, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court disposed of the Writ Petition. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are relevant and therefore, reproduced below:

¶16

5. The Petitioners are directed to file a written undertaking by 21^st August, 2023 stating therein that they have accepted the order dated 26^th July, 2023 and shall not challenge the same and neither are they going to approach the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

NCLT by invoking the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

¶19

6. If for any reason possession of the said Flats is not handed over to the Authorized Officer on 5^th September, 2023 at 3.00 p.m., the Advocate Court Commissioner appointed earlier, shall take possession of the said Flats by physically dispossessing the Petitioners and/or any other person found in occupation thereof on 6^th September, 2023 and handover the same to the Authorized Officer of the 1^st Respondent. The Senior Police Inspector of the local Police Station shall give all necessary assistance to the said Advocate Court Commissioner (including deputing adequate number of Police personnel) to ensure that physical possession of the said Flats is taken without any hindrance on 6^th September, 2023.

¶20

After that, on 8^th September 2023, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed an order in Writ Petition No.2556 of 2023 stating that the applicants complied with the order dated 19^th August 2023 by handing over the control of the three mortgaged flats to the secured creditor.

¶21

After that, the defendants announced the sale and conducted the e-auction. The defendants successfully sold the three mortgaged properties for Rs.44,60,20,000/-. On 26^th February 2024, the defendants issued sale certificate favouring the auction purchaser (i) Ms Asha Narendra Jain, (ii) Mr Vaibhav Narendra Jain, and (iii) Ms Vaijanti Vaibhav Jain. The secured creditor handed over the physical possession to the auction purchaser and therefore, the application in its present form has become infructuous. The applicants took no steps to bring the subsequent events on record. The defendants therefore, requested the Tribunal to dispose of the Securitisation Application as infructuous.

¶22

The defendants’ counsel filed service affidavit (exhibit-12) to show that on 30^th May 2024, the e-mail was sent to the advocate

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

on record who chose not to enter appearance. Therefore, the application has gone unopposed.

¶25

Hence, Interlocutory Application No.1131 of 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak M. Thakkar) Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶28

Nidhi

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶31

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

03.06.2024

Sr. No.2

			SA No.281 of 2023
classifi -cation	No. of Exh.		Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Edelweiss ARC Ltd. & Anr.
		None Mrs	for the applicants. Uma S. Fadia – Advocate for defendants.
	12	1. 2. 3.	The defendants’ counsel has presented service affidavit (exhibit-12), which is taken on record. Order in I.A. No.1131 of 2024 passed separately. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.1131 of 2024, Securitisation Application No.281 of 2023 stands dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.
			Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶36

Nidhi

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramanik Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhas Vishnu Kumbhar versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Deepak Balkrishna Dhar versus Karur Vysya Bank

Maya Arun Sureka versus Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Limited

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhay Pandhannath Madhavi

Mr Anand Prakash Mishra versus Hdfc Bank

Sufiyabi Abdul Rahman Chogle versus Hsbc Bank