AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by appellants for seeking urgent relief.
The appellants are in appeal aggrieved by the fact that the application for an early hearing was filed by the appellant before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad, (D.R.T), but that was not considered.
Since the sale is scheduled to be held on 21.08.2024, the matter is to be heard urgently and prayer concerning the amendment of the S.A. is also to be considered.
However, the Ld. Presiding Officer listed the matter for hearing on 21.08.2024. If the matter is heard today concerning the amendment application and thereafter, the prayer for a stay of the auction is heard, the borrower applicant will not get time to press for an extension of the sale which is to take place today.
This could have been avoided had the Ld. Presiding Officer listed the amendment application for hearing on an earlier date which was available after 13.08.2024. But the listing of the matter on 21.08.2024 would have frustrated the entire process of the appellant, seeking a prayer to stay of the auction, which I find, is not proper and therefore, a direction is given to the D.R.T.-II, Ahmedabad to hear the application for amendment today and also the prayer for stay of the auction and appropriate order be passed today itself.
With this observation exercising jurisdiction of this Tribunal u/s. 17-A of the Recovery Of Debts And Bankruptcy Act (RDB) Act, the appeal is disposed of and the Ld. Counsel appearing for the bank is directed to inform the bank about this order.