Ashwin Mankeshwar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against the rejection of an application for waiver of pre-deposit under SARFAESI Act, the tribunal fixed a lower deposit amount and granted an extension, staying further proceedings upon payment.
What did the court decide?
The appellant was directed to deposit 2 Crores in two instalments within specified weeks; upon payment, applications under the SARFAESI Act are stayed.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 547/2022 (WoD)
In
Appeal on Diary No. 1095/2022
Between
Mr Ashwin Ramesh Mankeshwar & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
The Authorized Officer, … Respondent/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Mr Atul Pande, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr Raju Shinde along with Nishi Gandha and Ms Shweta Kamath (Authorized Officer- Chief Manager), Advocate for Respondent Bank.
-: Order dated: 27/10/2022:-
- The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by the Appellants seeking urgent relief.
- The Appellants are in the Appeal impugning the order dated 14.10.2022 in I.A. No. 1884/2022 in S.A. No. 223/2022 on the files of the D.R.T., Nagpur. The grounds raised in the S.A. are various starting from the classification of the debt as NPA when there was the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court prohibiting the classification of debt during the Covid-19 Pandemic as NPA.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act due to financial hardships.
Whether the delay in depositing the required sum justifies the dismissal of the application for an extension of time.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mr Ashwin Ramesh Mankeshwar & Ors.
- respondent
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
Coram
Ashok Menon
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · October
- CNR
- 271090010952022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court