AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Ravi Kumar, J
This appeal is preferred against order dated 24/05/2018 in I.A. No. 837 of 2018 and Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 331 of 2018 on the file of DRT-II, Mumbai. Appellant herein has challenged measures of the bank in the above referred S.A.
Tribunal below on a consideration of contentions of both parties dismissed the I.A. as well as S.A. holding that licensees have entered into collusive leave and license agreements with the borrower. But Tribunal below while dismissing the application protected the licensee for some period subject to condition of deposit of license fee with the respondent bank.
Heard both sides.
It is represented that licensee also filed appeal before this Tribunal but subsequently the same is withdrawn and licensee paid rent for few months thereafter discontinued paving rent either to the bank or to the appellant. It is also represented that except the property in possession of licensee other property is in possession of the bank i.e., shop no. 5, With regard to property in possession of licensee it is for the parties to take appropriate steps available under the law and it is nothing to do with the present appeal.
Advocate for appellant submitted that appellant is interested in settling the matter but that also cannot be considered in this appeal. However, it will not preclude the appellant and the bank for any negotiations even after dismissal of this appeal. As no valid grounds are made Out to interfere with the impugned Order dated 24/05/2018, I am of the view that appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed making it clear that both parties, are at liberty for any amicable settlement.
All miscellaneous applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.