Appellant challenged dismissal of an appeal against recovery proceedings. Court held that entertaining appeal without considering pre-deposit was erroneous and exempted legal representative from pre-deposit liability under Section 21 RDB Act.
Waiver of pre-deposit under Section 21 granted; appeal taken on file; no stay on possession granted.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 569/2022 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 1183/2022
Between
Premkumar Devandas Kishnani … Appellant/s V/s. Canara Bank & Anr. …Respondent/s
Mr Gurang Kinkhabwala, i/b Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Rishabh Shah. i/b Ms Vaishali Bhilare, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr Rajesh Dubey, i/b Ms Shradha Agarwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
-: Order dated: 25/11/2022:-
This is an Application filed under section 21 of the RDB Act by the Appellant to get a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit. 2. The appeal has been filed impugning the order in Appeal No. 8/2020 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai dated 03/11/2022 dismissing the appeal filed under section 30 of the RDB Act.
1
defendant had also died pending proceedings and additional defendants No. 3 (a), (b) and (c) were impleaded as his legal representatives.
2
Exhibit 267 seeking a review of the confirmation of the sale. Vide order dated 27/01/2020 the review was rejected.
entertaining the appeal. The finding of the Learned Presiding Officer that the counsel for the Appellant did not advance any arguments on the application for waiver, is no reason to proceed to entertain the appeal itself and dismiss the same on merits.
4
contending that the Appellant has taken contradictory pleas about him being the purchaser of the property on the one hand and that he was allotted the property in a family arrangement, on the other. Documents were also produced to show that the deceased himself had claimed the property as his self-acquisition. The documents pertaining to the Society where the property is situated, with interpolations to indicate that it belonged to Hindu Undivided Family were also produced. 9. In consideration of this application, this Tribunal is only concerned with the payment of pre-deposit as contemplated under section 21 of the RDB Act. And therefore, I am not inclined to delve deep into the merits of the rival contentions regarding the validity of the partition deed, the exclusive right set up by the Appellant or the other contentions raised. There is no dispute that the Appellant is only liable to the extent of the estate inherited by him from his father, the deceased 1st defendant. Hence, he is not a borrower in the strict sense. The extent of his liability has also not been determined. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Appellant is not liable to pay any amount by way of predeposit under section 21 of the RDB Act. The appeal shall be taken on file in case there are no other defects to be cured.
5
party interests in the property without the permission of this Tribunal.
Post on 13.12.2022 before the Registrar.
Sd/Chairperson
mks-4
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal under Section 30 of the RDB Act requires a pre-deposit under Section 21 before being entertained. Whether the Appellant is liable to make a pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDB Ac
Whether the Presiding Officer erred in entertaining the appeal without considering the waiver application under Section 30A.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Premkumar Devandas Kishnani
Canara Bank
Yagoda Satsang Society of India
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
