Partly allowed

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Palm Kernel India Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT8 Jul 2022MISC APPEAL/41/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal challenging the maintenance of status quo by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune. The TAT directed the PO to dispose of the Securitization Application within four weeks without disturbing the existing status quo order, noting delays in settlement attempts.

What did the court decide?

Directed the DRT, Pune to dispose of S.A. No. 207/2018 within four weeks; order maintaining status quo is to remain unchanged while S.A. is pending.

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Palm Kernel India Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 41/2022

¶2

Between Indian Overseas Bank … Appellant/s V/s. M/s. Palm Kernel India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶3

Mr Charles DeSouza along with Ms Khusbhoo Agarwal, i/b M/s. Thodur Law Associates, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Gaurav Singh, Advocate for Respondent

¶4

-: Order dated: 08/07/2022:-

¶5

The Appellant has come up with an appeal challenging a common order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the learned P.O., D.R.T., Pune, in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) Nos. 395, 396, 444/2021 filed for various reasons in Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 207/2018.

¶6

The history of this S.A. has been quite checkered. There was a One Time Settlement (O.T.S.) proposal that the Appellant Bank had allegedly accepted, but the borrowers failed to comply with the condition of the proposal, and in consequence, this resulted in the rejection of the proposal on 19.03.2020. In the impugned order the learned P.O. stated that the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he is ready to deposit the O.T.S. amount along with interest immediately with the respondent bank, but it is pertinent to note that the O.T.S. proposal was already rejected as early as on 19.03.2020 and therefore, he could not have deposited the amount as per the O.T.S. which has fallen apart.

¶7

¶8

The learned P.O. did observe in the order that the auction purchaser had opposed the application, but despite that, the learned P.O. directed the status-quo to be maintained till the next date of hearing and proceeded to make the order. It is pertinent to note that even earlier, several suggestions were made by the borrowers for stalling the proceeding under the guise of settlement, and those were rejected by the then learned P.O., D.R.T., Pune.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the borrower had sufficient time to settle the dispute, but no positive measures are seen taken. I am disposing of this appeal with a direction to the learned P.O. to dispose of the S.A. No. 207/2018 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, without disturbing the order of the learned P.O. to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the S.A.

¶10

With the above observation, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶11

All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶12

Sd/Chairperson

¶13

dpj-17

¶14

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Palm Kernel India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Overseas Bank v. M/S. Palm Kernel India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shrenik Himmatlal Mehta versus Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.

Fenil Bharatbhai Shah versus Bank of India

Maliram Makharia Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. versus Industrial Development Bank of India Ltd.

Chandravadan Pranlal Kapadia & Ors. versus Bank of India & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus The Icici Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Namburi Malakondala Rao versus Indian Bank