Disposed

Ms Eco Trade Reclaimed Rubber I Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

DRAT20 Jul 2022MISC APPEAL/96/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order, the Tribunal directed the respondent bank to deposit auction proceeds and accrued interest before the Tribunal and place the funds in a term deposit, noting that substantive contentions regarding machinery removal were not raised by the borrower or bank in the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Bank directed to deposit Rs.1,47,61,862/- plus interest in the Tribunal and place in term deposit.

Ms Eco Trade Reclaimed Rubber I Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India — Arbitration | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 96/2022

¶3

Between M/s. Eco Trade Reclaimed Rubber (I) Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

State Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. Puneet K. Gogad, Advocate for Appellants.

¶6

Mr. Digambar G. Gaikwad, i/b M/s. M. V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghoghare, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

-: Order dated: 20/07/2022:-

¶9

Appellant is the auction purchaser of the secured assets put up for sale by Respondent No.1 Bank in consequence of which the property was sold in the auction sale. The Appellant had participated in the auction and purchased the said property for a sum of Rs.1,47,61,862/-. The Appellant has already paid that entire amount and a Sale Certificate has been issued to him.

¶10

However, the sale was challenged by the Borrower in S.A. No. 26/2014 and in consequence thereof, the sale was set aside and the Sale Certificate was quashed with a direction to the Appellant to deliver the property back to the Bank. The said order has been confirmed in Appeal by this Tribunal, and also by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, and as of now, the order has become final.

¶11

¶12

Under the circumstances, the Appellant had approached the D.R.T., Pune, with a Miscellaneous Application No. 30/2021for refund of the amount deposited with interest from the date of payment and also the legal charges. The Ld.P.O. disposed of the M.A. on 25.05.2022 directing the refund of the amount Rs.1,47,61,862/- to the Appellant together with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of M.A. No.30/2021.

¶13

The Appellant is aggrieved by the refusal of payment interest from the date of deposit, and also with the rate of interest awarded, and declining of security and legal charges. He has, therefore, impugned it.

¶14

The learned counsels appearing for the Respondent Bank as also the borrower vehemently oppose this application on the ground that the Appellant who was in possession of the property for the last so many years has removed the machinery installed therein and is answerable to account that. However, the borrower has not filed any objections in this Appeal as well as in M.A. No. 30/2021 which is not even discussed in the impugned order. The Bank has also not raised such contentions before the D.R.T., hence they are given time to file their reply since the Appeal will be taken up for hearing after considering the replies which are yet to be filed by the Respondents. I direct the Respondent Bank to deposit the amount of Rs.1,47,61,862/- before the Registrar of this Tribunal in the form of a Demand Draft.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that the D.D. has already been handed over to the D.R.T., Pune, along

¶16

¶17

with the application but since that M.A. has already been disposed of by the D.R.T., I find no reason in remitting that amount before the D.R.T., Pune, since the issue is pending consideration before this Tribunal, therefore, the Respondent Bank is directed to withdraw that amount from the D.R.T and produce the same i.e. Rs.1,47,61,862/- together with the interest accrued before this Tribunal. The said amount shall be invested by the Registrar of this Tribunal in an interest-bearing term deposit in any nationalized bank.

¶18

The Respondent bank shall comply with this order within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶19

Post on 10.10.2022 for reply/hearing.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

dpj-12

¶22

Ms Eco Trade Reclaimed Rubber I Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Eco Trade Reclaimed Rubber I Pvt. Ltd. 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

Messrs. Parthesh Developers versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Budhpal Singh Bhati versus Punjab National Bank

National Laminate Corporation versus the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Vallabhdas Jivrajbhai Patel and Ors. versus Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. and Ors.

Janaseva Sahakari Bank Ltd. versus Authorized Officer Bank of Maharashtra

Praveen Prabhakaran Earully versus Hdfc Bank