AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The Appellant is challenging the order of the learned Presiding Officer dated 19.11.2010 in O.A. No. 139/2010 on the files of D.R.T.-III, Mumbai, wherein the interlocutory application filed by the Appellant as Exhibit-8 was dismissed by the impugned order. The prayer in the application pending the O.A. was to direct the third Defendant State Bank of India not to retain the excess amount, if any, realized after the sale of secured assets with them which is Bungalow No. 15, Udadhi Tarang Cottages Co-op. Housing Society, Ner J. W. Marriott Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai- 49.
It is pointed out that there was a misconception about the relief sought in the application by the learned Presiding Officer and the application was dismissed for the reason that the Applicant has sought relief restraining Defendant No. 3 from the proceeding against the aforementioned property. In fact, on reading the application it is clear that no such relief was sought in the application. Therefore, the learned Presiding Officer was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the applicant could not have sought such a relief, submits the Ld. counsel.
Be as it may, the Applicant is not aware whether the property has already been sold by the third Defendant for the realization of the debt or whether the amount is still being retained by them.
Under the circumstances, the Appeal has become infructuous and therefore, I find no reason to retain the Appeal on file. The Appeal disposed of as become infructuous.