Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. State Bank of India

DRAT20 Jul 2022MISC APPEAL/81/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn pursuant to an amicable settlement between the appellants and the respondent bank regarding an outstanding loan amount, installment schedule, and property possession terms.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn; Registry directed to release pre-deposit amount to respondent bank; Settlement terms approved.

Mukesh Kumar and Anr. versus State Bank of India — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 81/2022 Arising out of S.A. No. 91/2022 (DRT-III, Delhi)

¶3

Mukesh Kumar & Anr. Vs State Bank of India

¶4

20.07.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶5

Present: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Ld. counsel along with Mr. Mukesh Kumar, appellant no.1, for the appellants

¶6

Mr. Ashish Batra, Ld. counsel along with Mr. R.K. Popli, Manager for the respondent bank

¶7

This matter has been taken by me through Video Conferencing.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for about one hour, a suggestion was given to them by this Tribunal to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly, the learned counsels sought a pass over to discuss the matter.

¶9

After the pass over, when the matter is taken up again, the learned counsels for the parties, on instruction from their respective clients, informs that after deliberations, the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement on the following terms:-

¶10

Out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.40,74,675/-, the bank shall waive miscellaneous expenditure of Rs.3,29,579/- charged to the appellants’ account, reducing the total outstanding amount to Rs.37,45,096/-.

¶11

The amount of pre-deposit totalling Rs.6.94 lacs made by the appellants will be released directly to the bank by this Tribunal.

¶12

The appellants will deposit with the bank an amount of Rs.3.06 lacs by 22.07.2022.

¶13

The Appellants will pay to the bank the rest of the amount, i.e. Rs.27,45,096/- in three equal monthly instalments on or before 22^nd of every month starting from 22.08.2022, i.e. on or before 22.08.2022, 22.09.2022 and 22.10.2022.

¶14

In view of the above settlement, the auction of the property in question stands stayed. The bank will also not pursue the matter further and will also not charge any interest on the outstanding amount till then.

¶15

Appellants will not seek any extension of time to make payment as per the above schedule.

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

After receipt of the aforesaid payments, the bank will hand over the possession and title documents of the property in question to the appellants

¶18

In case of default in making any of the payments to the bank as per the aforesaid given schedule, the bank will be at liberty to take recourse to further proceedings in accordance with law and auction the property in question and in that event, the concession of Rs.3,29,579/- granted by the bank will stand withdrawn and the bank will be entitled to recover its total outstanding amount.

¶19

In view of above settlement, the learned counsel for the appellants states that he does not want to pursue this appeal any more and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶21

The Registry is directed to release the pre-deposit amount of Rs.6.94 lacs deposited by the appellants to the respondent bank within a week.

¶22

Copy of this order be given dasti to both the parties.

¶23

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶24

-pk

Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar and Anr. v. State Bank of India

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

Canara Bank versus Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Others

Edelweiss Arc Ltd. versus Manish Sharma ANd Ors.

Rajnish Wadhera versus Indian Oversesas Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus mr.Kishore Krishnarao Avarsekar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Sotwal and Ors. versus Authorised Officer, Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited

Patanjali Yogapeeth Trust versus State Bank of India and Ors.