The Aurangabad DRT dismissed the Securitisation Application. The Presiding Officer held that without physical possession and since the Mumbai DRT had already decreed the loan liability, the application was devoid of merits.
Securitisation Application No.85/2022 stands dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed off.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
| 18.03. Sr. No |
2022 .70 SA No. 85/2022 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Classifi cation |
No. of Exh. |
|
| SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 85/2022 Sudhamati Ratnakar Gutte ..Applicant Versus State Bank of India ..Respondent Mr. A.A. Mishra - Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Adwant – Advocate for the respondent-bank. The matter is taken through Hybrid. 1. In this matter arguments have been heard. 2. The main challenge was to the physical possession, the same has not been taken. The entire gambit of the SA, was that the loan is being taken by the company where the property is mortgaged. 3. The Original Application has already been decreed by the Hon’ble Mumbai DRT therefore this Tribunal do not wish to enter into the liability and the mortgage which have been upheld by the DRT Mumbai. There is no discrepancy in the District Magistrate’s order, this Securitisation Application has to be dismissed being devoid of merits. 4. In view of the above, I pass the following order. ORDER |
||
| A. The Securitisation Application No.85/2022 stands dismissed. B. Accordingly all the pending interlocutory applications stands disposed off. C. File be consigned to the record room. |
||
| (Vimal Gupta) Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad |
[SBJ] (SA No.85/2022) Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Securitisation Application lacks merits due to non-physical possession and prior DCMI upholding.
Sudhamati Ratnakar Gutte
State Bank of India
Vimal Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
