Dismissed

Car Craze Automorvel v. Rbl Bank Limited

DRT2 Apr 2024SA/283/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interlocutory application seeking withdrawal of a securitisation application under the moratorium of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was allowed by consent, resulting in the dismissal of the main application as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The securitisation application stood dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs; applicants granted liberty to file fresh application.

Car Craze Automorvel versus Rbl Bank Limited — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2024)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶2

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

¶3

Sr. No.19

¶4

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No.708 of 2024 In

¶5

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO.283 of 2023

¶6

Car Craze Automorvel & Ors. … Applicants

¶7

Versus RBL Bank Ltd. … Defendant

¶8

Mr Puneet Gogad i/b Ms Nemi Bhavsar – Advocate for the applicants. Mr Arkesh Ayyagari i/b Mr Meghnath Navlani – Advocate for defendant.

¶9

Shri Deepak M. Thakkar Presiding Officer, 2^nd April 2024.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The applicants’ counsel requests the Tribunal to allow them to withdraw the Securitisation Application as the automatic moratorium under Section 96 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 requesting to keep all the contentions between the parties open and liberty to the applicants to file fresh Securitisation Application as and when the cause of action arises. Defendant’s counsel has no objection in this regard.

¶12

By consent, Interlocutory Application No.708 of 2024 is allowed with no order as to costs.

¶13

Sd/-

¶14

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

¶15

Radhika

¶16

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL No.2, MUMBAI

¶17

(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER)

ORDER SHEET

02.04.2024

Sr. No.19

		SA No.283 of 2023
classifi- cation	No. of Exh.	Car Craze Automorvel Vs. RBL Bank Ltd.
		Mr Puneet Gogad i/b Ms Nemi Bhavsar – Advocate for the applicant. Mr Arkesh Ayyagari i/b Mr Meghnath Navlani – Advocate for defendant.
	13	1. The learned counsel for the applicant has presented I.A. No.708 of 2024 supported by affidavit (exhibit- 13), which is taken on record. 2. Order in Interlocutory Application No.708 of 2024 passed separately. 3. In view of the order passed in I.A. No.708 of 2024, Securitisation Application No.283 of 2023 stands dismissed as withdrawn with no order as to costs. 4. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
		Sd/- Presiding Officer, DRT-2, Mumbai

¶22

Radhika

Car Craze Automorvel v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Car Craze Automorvel v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

pankaj shriram homkar versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Idbi Bank versus Neev Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of India versus Anvay Pharma Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Axis Bank versus M/S Yamini Zaveri

Bank of India versus Mrs. Jasmina Sunil Mody Prop. of M/s. Jas Innovatives

Icici Bank Limited versus Suresh