Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, ANIL S. KILOR
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited – Appellant
Versus
Nirvan Birla – Respondent
ORDER
1. This writ petition, at the instance of a secured creditor, is directed against an order dated 26th November, 2021 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai [hereafter "the DRT(II)", for short] on Securitisation Application No. 24 of 2015, being an application of the respondent no.1 under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. By the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed 4-wpl-71-2022. to restore possession of the secured asset in favour of the respondent no.1 by 22nd January, 2022.
2. The petitioner/secured creditor, aggrieved by the order dated 26th November, 2021, has appealed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai [hereafter "the DRAT(M)", for short]; however, prior to preferring such appeal, it has instituted this writ petition.
3. The office of the Chairperson of the DRAT(M) being vacant, we entertain this writ petition having Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Nirvan Birla And 2 Ors on 21 January, 2022 regard to the order dated 16th December, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 10911 of 2021 [State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh vs. Union of Indi
The court considered the jurisdictional issue of the DRT's decision on the question of title and the impact of the vacancy in the office of the Chairperson of the DRAT(M) on the petitioner's appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a petitioner has an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002, the writ petition may not be maintainable....
The court can provide temporary relief to petitioners in possession notice cases under the Act when the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not functioning due to a vacancy in the post of Presiding Officer.
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the need to address the non-func....
Petitioner's request for expedited hearing denied; alternative remedy available under law.
High Courts should not issue blanket directions to Tribunals for early disposal of cases as it disrupts board seniority, unless exceptional circumstances of urgency are demonstrated to justify such i....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
