A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipankar Datta stayed the DRT order till February 21 in view of the fact that Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) was not functional due to post of chairperson lying vacant.
The Court however said that if the vacant posts at DRAT get filled up, the bank will have to pursue its appeal before the DRAT.
The factual matrix in the case was that Yash Birla had taken a home loan in the year 2012 from the Kotak Mahindra Bank, earlier known as ING Vysya for a property situated in Kemps corner, Mumbai.
When there was a default in repayment of the loan, the bank took measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act for symbolic possession of the property.
In 2015, Nirvan Birla, Yash’s son, approached the DRT with an application under Section 17 challenging the right of the Bank, the secured creditor, to create a mortgage of the property.
Eventually, by way of an order dated November 26, 2021, the DRT allowed Nirvan’s application and directed Kotak Mahindra to restore possession to Nirvan to the extent of his share within eight weeks of the order.
Aggrieved by the order, Kotak approached the High Court with a writ petition challenging the order.
Source: Barandbench
