Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MR HARMEET SINGH NANDA vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 2 December 2021
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
<table border="1"> <thead> <tr> <th data-bbox="75 75 225 115">02.12.2021</th> <th data-bbox="225 75 785 115"><u>Roznama-MDRT-III</u><br/><u>M.A. No.20 of 2021</u></th> <th data-bbox="785 75 935 115">Next date</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td data-bbox="75 115 225 955"></td> <td data-bbox="225 115 785 955"> <p>Mr. Prablin Abrol, Advocate, appeared for the Applicant.</p> <p>Mr. Dilip Paranjpe, Advocate appeared for the Defendants.</p> <p>Tribunal has an issue in the matter as the Applicant taken out M.A. in O.A. which is already disposed of as explained below.</p> <p>Defendant Bank given credit facilities to one M/s. Laxmi Travels on the strength of mortgage of the property which is subject matter of M.A.</p> <p>When the Borrower defaulted in servicing the Credit Facility, towards recovery of the same, Defendant Bank filed O.A. No 100 of 2007 before this Tribunal, which got ordered and decreed on 14.07.2015. It was an ex-parte order without defendants filing Written Statement in the matter.</p> <p>Thereafter Recovery Proceeding R.P. No.347 of 2015 was initiated before Ld. Recovery Officer -II of this Tribunal for execution of the order and in that R.P., present Applicant filed Application for intervention claiming some interest in the said property against which R.P. was initiated.</p> <p>The Intervener Application was dismissed by the Ld. R.O. by an order dated 10.11.2021.</p> <p>It is aggrieved by this Order of the Ld.</p> </td> <td data-bbox="785 115 935 955"></td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
✓
02.12.2021 (M.A. No.20 of 2021)
Recovery Officer, the Applicant wanted to agitate and challenge the same in the Tribunal. Actually this being an order in the R.P., it should have been by way of an Appeal No.100 of 2007 against R.P. No.347 of 2015 (before the Ld. R.O.). Instead, erroneously, the party has taken out M.A. No. 20 of 2021 in O.A. No.100 of 2007 which already stood disposed of and closed.
As such, this M.A. is not maintainable.
Accordingly, M.A. stands disposed of.
This is without prejudice to the rights of the Applicant to pursue his remedy appropriately.
Ex.6
Praecipe (I.A. No.1183 of 2021) filed by Applicant.
Ex.7
Affidavit of Service filed by Applicant.
Closed
P.O. DRT-III