Partly allowed

Yadav Transport Company and Ors. v. Canara Bank

DRAT2 May 2022IA/51/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicable tribunal directed appellants to deposit Rs. 56 lakhs in two tranches as pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Upon deposit of the first tranche, auction and possession proceedings were stayed. The imposition of accrued interest was acknowledged.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit Rs. 56 lakhs in two tranches; auction sale and taking over possession stayed upon payment of first tranche.

Yadav Transport Company and Ors. versus Canara Bank — Insurance | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 51/2022 In Appeal No. 16/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Yadav Transport Company & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. Canara Bank …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate for Appellants.

¶6

Mrs. Vaishali Bhilare, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶7

-:Order dated: 02/05/2022:-

¶8

This is an application filed for a waiver of pre-deposit u/s 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act).

¶9

The amount due to the Bank has not yet been determined by DRT and O.A. is still pending and S.A. is disposed of which is the impugned order challenged before Tribunal in Appeal. As per Sec. 13 (2) Notice dated 18.07.2019 issued by Respondent Bank a sum of Rs.1,86,97,325.62 is due.

¶10

Admittedly, Appellants have deposited a sum of Rs.32,85,529.29 towards the said amount due. Hence that amount will be deducted from the amount claimed u/s 13(2) Notice and the same is mentioned in the reply filed by Respondent Bank and

¶11

¶12

the Account Statement produced by them. As of 31.03.2022, a sum of Rs.2,22,19,360.33 is outstanding towards the loan account. This includes interest that has accrued. The Appellants seek the maximum indulgence of this Tribunal as regards pre-deposit. It is well settled that the interest that accrues subsequently to the Notice issued u/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act is also to be added while calculating the amount claimed u/s 18 of SARFAESI Act. 50% amount which is claimed in the 13(2) Notice without subsequent interest would come to Rs.93,48,662.5 and 50% amount mentioned in the reply would come to Rs.1,11,09,680/-. The maximum indulgence that can be shown by this Tribunal is to direct the Appellants to deposit 25% of Rs.2,22,19,360.33. Considering the contentions raised, I leave the quantum of determination of the amount due open.

¶13

The Appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.56 lacs by way of pre-deposit u/s 18 of SARFAESI Act in two equal tranches. 1st tranche of Rs.28 lacs shall be deposited within three weeks i.e. on or before 23.05.2022 and the next tranche of Rs.28 lacs shall be deposited within three weeks i.e. on or before 13.06.2022. Failure to deposit the above-referred amounts within time stipulated would entail in automatic dismissal of the Appeal.

¶14

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

¶15

On the payment of 1st tranche within the stipulated time, all proceedings with regard to the auction sale and taking over possession of the secured asset shall stayed till further Orders.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

Post on 24.05.2022 for reporting compliance with payment of the first installment.

¶19

Sd/Chairperson

¶20

mks-4

¶21

Yadav Transport Company and Ors. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadav Transport Company and Ors. v. Canara Bank

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

Allahabad Bank versus Chandrakala Mukundrao Kohale

Chandrakant Tukaram Pawar versus Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Mr Kishore J Janani versus The Federal Bank Ltd.

Mstc Limited versus Standard Chartered Bank

Mrs Safia Abdul Majid Dhanani versus the Sahebrao Deshmukh Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Mr. Satyajit Balasaheb Kadam & Anr. versus The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. & 6 Ors.