Partly allowed

M/s Samrat wines and others v. Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

DRAT17 May 2022IA/147/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal considered an application for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement for entertaining an appeal. After hearing arguments regarding partial payments and inability to continue business, the chairperson directed a specific pre-deposit of Rs. 85 lakhs to be made in two instalments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs. 85 lakhs in two instalments; stay of further proceedings pending first instalment payment; automatic dismissal upon default.

M/s Samrat wines and others versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT : MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 147/2022

¶3

¶4

Misc. Appeal No. 51/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. Samrat Wines & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶7

HDB Financial Services Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms. Amita Chaware, Advocate for Appellants.

¶9

Mr. Charls De Souza along with Mr. Padmakar Garad, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

-: Order dated : 17/05/2022 :-

¶11

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe dated 18.04.2022 filed by Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for Appellants and the Respondent on the application filed for a waiver of pre-deposit u/s 18 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act).

¶13

It is submitted that the amount mentioned in notice dated 17.01.2018 issued u/s 13 (2) is Rs.6,10,56,208/-. Appellants submit that subsequent to receipt of above notice, Appellants have paid Rs.3.65 Crores and this amount has to be taken into account for

¶14

¶15

deciding the pre-deposit amount and, therefore, a very small amount needs to be deposited for entertaining this Appeal.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for Respondent submits that Appellant has to pay 50% of the entire amount together with accrued interest for entertaining their Appeal. If the amount, which they have paid consequent to issuance of the notice, is to be accounted for then the interest which has accrued subsequently will have to be added to and then, the outstanding amount comes to around Rs.7 Crores.

¶17

I am not going into nitty-gritty of the payments made. The Appellants, even after filing of Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court, have paid Rs.1 Crore and, therefore, prima facie there appears to some earnest attempts of making the payment.

¶18

Learned counsel for Appellants submitted that the Appellants were running a Wine Shop for which the loan was taken, and they had to shut it down because of the subsequent stand taken by the Government that the distance between a Liquor Shop and the National High Way should not be less than 500 meters. This is something which came on the way of the Appellants from continuing with the business after availing the loan resulting in default of payment. Therefore, it was not a deliberate attempt on the part of the Appellants to refrain from payments.

¶19

Taking all these points into the consideration and on hearing arguments of the learned counsel on either sides, I direct the Appellants to deposit a sum of Rs.85 Lakhs in two instalments u/s

¶20

¶21

18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act as pre-deposit for entertaining this Appeal. From out of this amount Rs.40 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 19.05.2022, and balance amount shall be deposited on or before 02.06.2022.

¶22

On payment of first installment within the stipulated time, there shall be a stay of further proceedings till 02.06.2022. In case of default in any of the above referred deposits, the Appeal stands dismissed automatically.

¶23

The above amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶24

As and when the said amounts are deposited, it shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalized bank, initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter it will be renewed periodically.

¶25

Post on 19.05.2022 for reporting compliance with regard to payment of the first installment.

¶26

Sd/Chairperson

¶27

dpj-2

¶28

M/s Samrat wines and others v. Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Samrat wines and others v. Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani versus Authorised Officer, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Gangaram Narayandas Through its Prop Shri Kishore Gangaram Lakhwani and Others versus Hdb Financial Services

Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. versus Ms Maredia Enterprises

Shri Ashok Shamumal Wadhwa versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Mstc Limited versus Standard Chartered Bank

M/S Kenwood Marketing Inc. versus Hdfc Bank Ltd. & Ors.