Irshad Ahmed v. Karur Vysya Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal against a bank, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to reduce the statutory deposit from 50% to 25%. The court found that the appellant failed to substantiate his claim of financial loss due to COVID with material evidence.
What did the court decide?
Appellant to pay 50% of Rs.10,81,136/- (Rs. 5,40,568/-) within 15 days; failing which, appeal rejected. Matter posted for compliance.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
IA 224/2021 & IA 225/2021
In
AIR 35/2021
Irshad Ahmed ... Appellant Vs A.O.,Karur Vysya Bank Ltd ... Respondent
07/06/2022
This application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit of 50%.
Advocate for appellant submitted that due to COVID, appellant’s business is not sound and therefore 50% statutory deposit may be reduced to 25%.
I have perused the material papers and affidavit filed in support of the petition.
As per Section 13(2) notice, amount claimed is Rs.10,81,136.05p as on 19.12.2017. Admittedly, no payments were made subsequent to 13(2) notice. Though appellant contended that his business is not in sound state due to COVID, nothing is produced to substantiate the same. As appellant failed to produce any material, I am not inclined to reduced the statutory deposit.
For the above reasons, appellant shall pay 50% of Rs.10,81,136/- which comes to Rs.5,40,568/- within 15 days from today i.e., on or before 21.6.2022, failing which, appeal stands rejected.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the statutory deposit of 50% can be reduced to 25% due to the appellant's business loss caused by COVID.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Irshad Ahmed
- respondent
A.O., Karur Vysya Bank Ltd
Coram
Chairperson, Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · June
- CNR
- 331090000352021
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court