Disposed

Axis Bank v. Vinayak Metal Industries

DRAT24 Nov 2022IA/596/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered an interim stay application filed by the appellant challenging a DRAT order. The appellant sought to stay an order prohibiting possession of secured assets, arguing discrepancies in the Non-Performing Asset classification dates relative to RBI guidelines during the pandemic. No order was finalised due to the respondent's absence.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim order staying the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 on I.A. No. 1827/2022 in S.A. No. 2325/2022 at Diary No. 2325/2022.

Axis Bank versus Vinayak Metal Industries — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 596/2022 (Stay) In Misc. Appeal No. 151/2022

Between

Axis Bank

… Appellant/s

V/s.

Vinayak Metal Industries & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr. Nishit D along with Mr. Bhavesh Poojari, i/b MDP Partners, Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

-: Order dated: 24/11/2022:-

¶10

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe filed by the Appellant seeking urgent relief.

¶11

The Appellant has come up with an appeal challenging the order dated 18.10.2022 in I.A. No. 1827/2022 in S.A. No. 2325/2022 on the files of D.R.T., Pune wherein a stay was granted against Defendant Bank prohibiting them from taking possession of the secured assets.

¶12

It was contended that the debt allegedly due from the borrower was classified as NPA by the bank on 14.02.2021 in violation of the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in view of the ongoing pandemic prohibiting the declaration of loans as NPA during the period starting from 31^st August till the 23^rd March 2021.

¶13

¶14

The demand notice issued by the Appellant u/s 13 (2) of the SARFASEI Act mentioned the date on which the debt was classified as NPA with the effect from 14-02-2021 and the amount due as of the date of 30^th September 2021 has been demanded.

¶15

The borrower send the reply to the demand notice u/s 13 (2) and to that, the Appellant has sent an explanation u/s 13(3A) of the SARFASEI Act on 16.12.2021 in which it is clarified that the declaration of the NPA was on 31^st March 2021 as per the extant RBI guidelines and not on 14.02.2021, although because of the default the account had become NPA on 14.02.2021 and therefore, the order of the learned Presiding Officer finding fault with the classification of the debt as NPA is apparently at error, submits the learned counsel for the Appellant and therefore, he seeks stay of the impugned order.

¶16

The Respondent has been served but none appears and therefore, ad-interim order is passed staying the operation of the impugned order dated 18-10-2022 on I.A. No. 1827/2022 in S.A. at Diary No. 2325/2022 awaiting appearance for the Respondents.

¶17

Post on 20.12.2022 for hearing.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

psa-07

¶20

Axis Bank v. Vinayak Metal Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Axis Bank v. Vinayak Metal Industries

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

Akar Creations Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara Bank

Shri Gautam Govindlal Shah versus Bank of Baroda and Ors.

The Federal Bank Ltd. versus Dhrukumar J Doshi

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Nav Chandika Upsa Jalsinchan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Chapadgaon

The Federal Bank Limited versus Mr. Sandeep Ramesh Kulkarni & Ors.

The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. versus The Federal Bank Ltd. & Ors.