Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK vs HEMANT CHHATRABHUJ SHAH on 9 September 2021
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
[SBJ] (SA No.116/2014 , SA No.106/2014, & MA No.26/2016) Page 1 of 2
09.09.2021
Sr. No.24,25 & 26
SA No. 116/2014
SA No. 106/2014
& MA No.26/2016
Classific
No. of
Exh.
SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.116/2014
M/s. Rajmudra Real Estate
..Applicant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank & others
..Respondents
Mr. K.B. Deshpande - Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Avinash Borulkar / Mr. S.R. Vakil – Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. P.S. Gakiwad h/for Mr. A.G. Talhar – Advocate for respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.2.
SECURITISATION APPLICATION No.106/2014
Kisan Agro Mart Pvt. Ltd.
..Applicant
Versus
Indian Overses Bank
..Respondent
Mr. P.S. Gakiwad h/for Mr. A.G. Talhar – Advocate for applicant.
Mr. Avinash Borulkar / S.R. Vakil – Advocate for respondent-bank.
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No.26/2016
Indian Overseas Bank
..Applicant
Versus
Hemant Chhaturbhuj Shah & others.
..Respondents
Mr. Avinash Borulkar – Advocate for applicant.
Mr. P.S. Gakiwad h/for Mr. A.G. Talhar – Advocate for respondent- No.2.
Mr. K.B. Deshpande – Advocate for respondent No.3.
None for respondent No.1.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL,AURANGABAD
(BEFORE HON’BLE PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT AT AURANGABAD)
ORDER SHEET
[SBJ] (SA No.116/2014 , SA No.106/2014, & MA No.26/2016) Page 2 of 2
Due to Covid 19 situation the matter is taken through Video Conference.
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.
1. In this matter an earlier S.A. No.117/2014 was filed by Mr. Hemant Shah in which the action taken by the bank under securitisation was held to be invalid.
2. These proceedings are going on from the last 6-7 years and the DRT came to the conclusion that once the securitisation action be got set aside, may be in any of the matter and held illegal that cannot continue against the other persons. An option was given to the bank to withdraw the proceedings.
3. Once an action has been declared illegal by the competent Court and upheld by the higher forum, the proceedings under the said action cannot continue and as such in all these three cases, it is declared that the orders passed in the earlier Securitisation Application No.117/2014 declaring the action of the bank illegal is sustained and as such is declared illegal here also.
4. The counsel of the bank, at this stage seeks liberty to proceed in the matter. No liberty is required from this Tribunal. If law permit they can take action under the RDB Act or under any other law for the time being.
5. The Files of S.A. No.116/2014, S.A. No.106/2014 and M.A. No.26/2016 stand disposed off.
6. The Files of S.A. No.116/2014, S.A. No.106/2014 and M.A. No.26/2016 be consigned to the record room.
Both the parties may download the order from the official web-site which will be treated as a true copy as due to COVID 19 & staff constraints, the certified copies cannot be issued as of now till further orders.
(Vimal Gupta)
Presiding Officer
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad