AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the secured asset which is the subject matter of the Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 23 of 2018 pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) has been sold and the Appellants are challenging the sale. It is also submitted that the entire amount due to the Respondent bank has already been paid up and there is nothing due therefore, no amount is payable as mandatory pre-deposit.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that no proper instructions have been received from the bank concerning the exact amount that is due from the Appellants.
The Appellants are in appeal over an interlocutory order whereby the Appellants were allegedly dispossessed illegally by the auction purchaser and are, therefore, seeking restoration of the property to them. The matter will have to be decided finally in the S.A. as to whether the sale has to be set aside. In case the sale is set aside, the Appellants would automatically get a restoration of the property and therefore, I find that it will be futile to decide the Misc. Appeal while the S.A. is still pending and is ready to be disposed of.
Under the circumstances, without prejudice to the contentions raised by either side, the matter is remanded to the D.R.T. with a direction that the S.A. 23 of 2018 shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible untrammelled by the findings in the interlocutory order which stands challenged in this Misc. Appeal, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
Misc. Appeal is disposed of.