filed an application before the Recovery Officer DRT, Coimbatore challenging the authority of the Recovery Officer DRT, Mumbai to transfer the Recovery Certificate to Coimbatore ... submit that unless the order of DRT, Chennai dated 7.5.2004 in returning the papers to DRT III, Mumbai is questioned, the writ petition
DRT under
Section 17(1) of SARFAESI Act. He submits that petitioner initially
challenged the order of DRT by filing an appeal at DRAT Mumbai ... consider himself as aggrieved, shall approach DRT.
57. Plaint paragraph 23 further shows that plaintiff approached
DRT Mumbai by filing an application under Section
challenged the orders passed by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT) and Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal (DRAT), being aggrieved by pendente lite interest ... which was the proceeding transferred from this Court to DRT,
Mumbai. The other respondents also filed their written statements.
Thereafter, affidavits were filed
Mahim, Mumbai- 400016, in an auction in
recovery proceedings.
The Petitioner challenges the order passed by the DRAT,
Mumbai (I/c Chairperson, Mumbai sitting ... taken by the DRT-II as Petitioner is not a borrower and
restrain the Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai from taking any
further steps pursuant
Tiwari, Advocates for Workmen
Mr. Ramesh Gopinathan, Advocate
for the Receiver, DRT, Mumbai
Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate for
the Official Liquidator
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR ... proceedings before
the DRT. The other assignee of the debt was Stressed Assets Stabilization
Fund ('SASF'). The DRT, Mumbai invited bids
order dated 22.4.2010 passed by the DRT-II Mumbai before Debt
Recovery Appellate Tribunal Mumbai (DRAT Mumbai), which is
pending for hearing and final disposal ... held that both the
DRTs i.e. DRT Ahmedabad and DRT-II Mumbai have jurisdiction to
get the recovery certificate executed by their Recovery Officers
return the plaint to the plaintiff
for being presented in DRT, Mumbai under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code
of Civil Procedure .
The
facts ... Code of Civil Procedure for being presented before DRT. Mumbai.
Against the said order the company preferred Appeal from Order No.
53 of 2003 with
order of DRT, Mumbai, the decree passed by the DRT, Delhi
was transferred to DRT, Mumbai. It is further submitted by her that though ... DRT, Delhi, no useful purpose will be served in sending the matter back to
DRT by restoring the original application as the DRT, Mumbai cannot
name of PO, DRT, Pune authorizing
hearing of the subject matter by another DRT i.e. DRT - II, Mumbai on 23.12.2009.
12. The orders issued ... DRAT, Mumbai.
13. The request/ application made by DRT, Pune for keeping charge with DRT, Mumbai prior to his
proceeding on casual leave though casual
decree from Debt Recovery
Tribunal (DRT)-1, Mumbai for a sum of Rs.84.39
crores with interest. Other financial
institutions had also initiated proceedings ... recovery of their dues. Receiver was appointed
by DRT-1, Mumbai, who took possession of the
properties of the Company. Steps were also
taken
