Partly allowed

M/S Super India & Anr. v. State Bank of India

DRAT19 May 2022MISC APPLICATION/941/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) addressed appeals challenging Recovery Certificates issued by a bank, involving a dispute over Out of Court Settlement (OTS) proposals. The tribunal ordered appellants to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 17 lacs and Rs. 37 lacs in two appeals respectively to stay recovery proceedings, stating that default would lead to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Directing Appellants to pre-deposit Rs. 17 lacs in Appeal No. 57/2017 and Rs. 37 lacs in Appeal No. 58/2017 by 26.05.2022 to obtain a stay on recovery proceedings; default leads to automatic dismissal

M/S Super India & Anr. versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

M.A. No. 941/2016 (WoD)

¶3

¶4

Appeal No. 57/2017

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. Super India, a Proprietary Concern of … Appellant/s Mr. A. Shivan & Anr. V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶7

AND

¶8

M.A. No. 943/2016 (WoD) in

¶9

Appeal No. 58/2017

¶10

Between

¶11

M/s. Super Tyre Remoulding Works, … Appellant/s a Proprietary Concern of Mr A. Shivan & Anr. V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶12

Mr. G. R. Kinkhabwala, along with Mr. Manmohan Rao, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. P. Kumar Jain, i/b M/s. Prakash Punjabi & Co., Advocate for Respondent.

¶13

-: Order dated: 19/05/2022:-

¶14

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing on both sides. Applications for waiver of pre-deposit u/s 21 of the RDB Act. The Appeals are filed by two proprietary concerns owned by the same proprietor. Hence, their applications are dealt with together.

¶15

There is dispute regarding the amounts actually due. DRT has determined the amount that is to be paid by the Appellants,

¶16

¶17

but subsequently there was OTS proposal and consequent to that, the Appellants allegedly accepted the proposal and were ready to pay accordingly. But Bank did not accept it, stating that since there is already Recovery Certificates issued in both the matters, the OTS proposal was rejected. Hence, the matter was challenged before DRT and the Tribunal agreed with the Bank and directed the Appellants to pay the amount together with interest as per Recovery Certificates.

¶18

The main dispute that has to be decided in these Appeals is whether the OTS proposal should be accepted, and whether it is binding on the parties, or whether the Appellants are liable to pay the amount as per Recovery Certificates.

¶19

The decision at this point on the amount exactly due would be equal to deciding the Appeal itself. Considering that the Appeals under Sec. 21 of RDB Act requires pre-deposit of an amount between 25% to 50% of the amount due or determined. From the reply filed by the Bank, it is seen that a total sum of Rs.2.12 crores (approximately) is alleged to the due in both Appeals including the legal expenses etc.

¶20

Without going into nitty-gritty of the exact amount that is due claimed by the Bank, on going through the pleadings of both sides, I decide that the Appellants shall pre-deposit a sum of Rs.17 lacs in Appeal No. 57/2017 and a sum of Rs. Rs.37 lacs in Appeal No. 58/2017 on or before 26.05.2022. Default in payment of the aforesaid amount would result in the Appeal being dismissed.

¶21

¶22

In case the aforesaid amounts are paid within the time stipulated, there shall be a stay on all further proceedings with regard to the subject property.

¶23

The above amounts shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Failure to deposit the above referred amount would result in an automatic dismissal of the Appeal.

¶24

As and when the said amounts are deposited, it shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalized bank, initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter it will be renewed periodically.

¶25

Post on 27.05.2022 for reporting compliance with regard to payment of the aforesaid amount.

¶26

Mks-2 &3

¶27

M/S Super India & Anr. v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Super India & 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaya Bank versus Sterlite Industries India Limited

Pratik Kachru Repale versus State Bank of India

Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. versus Shri Rohidas Haribhau More

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. versus Hotchand Kishinchand Talreja

Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd. versus Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Spectra Motors Limited versus Icici Bank Ltd.