Disposed

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT5 Dec 2022IA/624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an interim application seeking a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant offered to deposit ₹7,00,000. The court allowed the deposit, ordered it to be invested, and granted an ad interim stay on the taking over of physical possession and sale of secured assets until the reply is filed and the matter is posted for detailed he

What did the court decide?

Amount deposited into DRTA Mumbai account in term deposits; ad interim stay on taking over of physical possession and sale of secured assets.

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 624/2022 (WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Dairy No. 1328/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s. Stone Yuug Corporation & Ors … Appellant/s V/s. Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s

¶6

Advocate for Appellant is present.

¶7

Mr Vijay H, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 05/12/2022:-

¶9

This is an application for a waiver u/s. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The appeal challenges the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer dated 01.12.2022 in two applications I.A. No. 1298/2022 and I.A. No. 1902/2022 in S.A. No. 258/2022 on the files of D.R.T., Nagpur.

¶10

The physical possession of the property is intended to be taken today the Appellant has to cross the hurdle of making a pre-deposit u/s. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The amount demanded as per Sec. 13 (2) is ₹ 1,21,00,000/- as of 13.09.2021. Subsequently, there was a proclamation of the sale in which the outstanding amount was shown as ₹ 1,13,49,072/-and also interest due as of 15.06.2022.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel submits that this may be taken as a threshold amount for pre-deposit. Subsequent to that sale notice, vide order of the Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Nagpur, the Appellant has made a

¶12

¶13

payment of ₹ 40,00,000/- on 10.06.2022, and ₹ 3,65,000/- was paid on various dates after issuance of the demand notice u/s. 13 (2). Hence, the outstanding amount would further come down, according to the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank seeks time to file their reply in which he agrees to give the break of the amount which is due as of the date of filing of the appeal inclusive of the interest.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant today offers to produce a Demand Draft for ₹ 7,00,000/- towards the pre-deposit amount the same shall be received by the Registry, and there shall be an ad interim stay to the taking over of the physical possession as well as the sale of the secured assets. After the reply comes, the application shall be posted for hearing in detail.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Post on 21.12.2022 for hearing.

¶19

rm-8

¶20

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Narmada Cars Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

J M Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. A.J. Modi & Sons & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus Shri Siddhi Vinayak Trading Co. & Ors.

Shree Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. versus Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank

Nitin Kalluram Dhandekar versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company through its Authorised Officer

Mohd. Shamim Mohd. Yasin Badgujar versus Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.