Excel v. Union Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the appellant to lower the mandatory deposit for entertaining the appeal from 50% to 25% of the claimed amount. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs.5,79,42,892/- before October 13, 2022.
What did the court decide?
Directed to pay 25% of the claimed amount, Rs.5,79,42,892/-, by 13.10.2022.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
A.IR:198/2022
M/S Excel V/S A.O.,Union Bank Of India
29/09/2022
Order pronounced (vide separate Order) in open court.
As Appeal is against Interim Order, by exercising power to reduce statutory deposit from 50% to 25%, I direct Petitioner/Appellant to deposit 25% of amount claimed by Authorized Officer of Respondent Bank in Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.
According to Demand Notice dated 20.11.2018 issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, amount claimed by Authorized Officer of Respondent Bank is Rs.23,17,71,566,18p. Petitioner/Appellant shall deposit 25% of Rs.23,17,71,566,18p, which comes to Rs.5,79,42,892/-, on or before 13.10.2022, failing which, the Appeal shall stand rejected.
Post the case on 14.10.2022, for compliance of payment.
Sd/Chairperson
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the statutory deposit against the appeal under the SARFAESI Act can be reduced from 50% to 25%?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/S Excel
- respondent
Union Bank Of India
Coram
Chairperson
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · September
- CNR
- 331090001982022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
9 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court