Dismissed

Ms Satlaj Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

DRAT16 Dec 2022MISC APPEAL/113/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the non-pressed appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal directed the lower Tribunal to clarify that its rejection of interim relief was based only on a prima facie view.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit conditions; directed lower Tribunal to clarify prima facie status of interim relief order.

Ms Satlaj Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No.113/2022 Arising out of S.A. No.213/2022 (DRT-I, Delhi)

¶3

M/s Satlaj Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.

¶5

16.12.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶6

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari,, Ld. Counsel for appellant

¶7

Ms. Sanya Lamba, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.1 bank

¶8

This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶9

Learned counsel for appellant states that he is not pressing this appeal. He, however, draws the attention of this Tribunal to the last para of the impugned order, rejecting the interim prayer of the appellant to restrain the respondent bank/court receiver from taking physical possession of the property in question scheduled for 19.05.2022. The said para of the order runs as under:-

¶10

“7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no denial on the part of the applicant regarding execution of aforesaid single/composite guarantee deed dated 30.08.2018 and declaration dated 30.08.2018 wherein the respondent no.4 has not been shown as co-borrower and these documents were executed by the S. applicants much prior to the issuance of another sanction letters dated 28.09.2018 and 11.10.2018. Even, in the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 18.10.2018, executed by M/s Satlaj Marketing Service (P) Ltd. by depositing the title documents of the property for the BG facility to the tune of Rs.2500 Lakhs, the Charge (100247514) dated 28.02.2019 of Rs.25 crore, which was created in favour of respondent no.1 bank in MCA and in the Balance Sheet and Directors Report for FY 2018-19 of M/s Satlaj Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd., the name of the Borrower is shown as M/s RCC infraventures Ltd. and the applicant vide Board Resolution dated 07.08.2018 authorised Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal to execute guarantee in favour of M/s RCC Infraventures Ltd. Admittedly, the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) have been served upon the S. applicants and after declaring the account as NPA on 14.12.2019, the applicant has not cleared the dues of the respondent bank. The applicant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity n the measures taken on the respondent FI under the SARFAESI Act including the order dated 31.03.2022, passed by the Ld. CMM, Delhi thereby appointed the court receiver who is going to take the physical possession of the

¶11

-: 2 :-

¶12

property in question on 19.05.2022. Thus, prima facie no case is exists in favour of the S. applicant for granting interim relief, accordingly, the prayer of the S. applicant for restraining the respondent bank/court receiver from taking physical possession of the property in question, which is schedule for tomorrow i.e. 19.05.2022, stands rejected. ”

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the Tribunal should have clarified in the order that the abovesaid expression of opinion of the learned Tribunal below should not be construed as any kind of expression of its opinion on the merits of the case(S.A.) but it had taken only a prima facie view of the matter.

¶14

Heard. As the appellant has not complied with the condition of pre-deposit as envisaged under the second proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the appeal cannot be entertained. Since the appellant is not pressing the appeal, it is dismissed as not pressed.

¶15

However, without going into merits of the appeal, this Tribunal is of the view that the learned Tribunal below should have clarified that the opinion expressed by it in the aforesaid order of rejecting the interim prayer of the appellant was on the basis of prima facie view of the matter and would not tantamount to any opinion on the merits of the S.A.

¶16

Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.

¶17

File be consigned to record.

¶18

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶19

-pk

Ms Satlaj Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Satlaj Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

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

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Priyank Gagneja and Ors.

Kashish Gems and Jewellery and Ors. versus Bank of India

Prabhu Dayal Memorial Religious and Educational Association and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Bombay Mercantile Co-Operative Bank versus Vinish Mittal and Ors.

Anil Kumar Jain versus Canara Bank

Preeti Dhaliwal versus Union Bank of India