Allowed

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay as Liquidator for Ms Genelec Ltd. v. Ms Rare Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

DRAT14 Jun 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal extended the time for M/s. Rolex Metal to deposit an outstanding sum and interest, originally fixed for 13 February 2020, until 30 June 2022, considering pandemic-related difficulties.

What did the court decide?

Time to deposit the amount was extended till 30 June 2022; respondent to pay interest calculated at 7% p.a. till that date.

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay as Liquidator… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 145 of 2022 (M.A.)

¶3

(Arising out of Appeal No. 81 of 2014 in DRT-1, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

14.6.2022 The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay as Liquidator for M/s. Genelec Limited … Appellant -VsM/s. Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited & Others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee lead by Mr. Malay Kumar Ghosh, Learned Senior Counsel for Applicant/M/s. Rolex Metal, Respondent No. 5 in Appeal

¶7

Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1A and 3A in the appeal

¶8

Mr. Subhodip Basak, Learned Counsel for Official Liquidator, Bombay/Appellant in Appeal

¶9

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶10

Heard Mr. Subhodip Biswas, Learned Counsel for Official Liquidator, Bombay/Appellant in appeal, Mr. Malay Kumar Ghosh, Learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Rolex Metal, Respondent No. 5 in appeal Mr. Prasenjit Pal, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 1A, M/s Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited and 3A, Invent Assets Securitization & Reconstruction Private Limited and perused the record.

¶11

M.A. Diary No. 145 of 2022

¶12

Instant M.A. has been filed by M/s. Rolex Metal, Respondent No. 5 in appeal, with a prayer that an amount of Rs.9,64,57,267.00 may be permitted to be deposited by extending the time in compliance

¶13

¶14

with the order dated 13^th February, 2020. Request is also made for allowing to pay further interest from 13^th May, 2020 onwards.

¶15

Learned Counsel Mr. Malay Kumar Ghosh, submits due to pandemic situation order dated 13^th February, 2020 could not be complied with. Learned Counsel further submits that even the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken note of the pandemic situation and extended the period of limitation. In order to fortify his submission, Learned Counsel places reliance on a judgment passed the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 and prays that Respondent No. 5 may be permitted to deposit the amount keeping in view the pandemic situation of Covid-19.

¶16

Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1A and 3A, Mr. Prasenjit Pal, files counter affidavit wherein in para 8 it is stated that they have no objection if time is extended to facilitate Respondent No. 5 to pay the interest amount. Learned Counsel, however prays that the interest, to be paid by Respondent No. 5, should be calculated upto the date of the order to be passed by this Appellate Tribunal. Further in para 9 Learned Counsel has prayed for simple interest at the rate of 7% per annum from 13^th May, 2020 till order being passed by this Tribunal.

¶17

In compliance of the order, Respondent No. 5, M/s. Rolex Metals, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.6,62,50,000.00 within three months from the date of the order, i.e. 13^th February, 2020, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum simple from the date of the order dated 8^th November, 2013 of DRT till payment, with the Official Liquidator. In order to show bona fide, Appellant/Respondent No. 5 has annexed five Bank Drafts totaling to Rs.9,64,57,267.00. It is not in dispute that Applicaaant/Respondent No. 5 is ready and willing to comply with the order dated 13^th February, 2020.

¶18

In such circumstance, the only point to be looked into is what would be the consequence of non-compliance of the direction given in the order dated 13^th February, 2020?

¶19

¶20

Mr. Subhodip Biswas, Learned Counsel for the Official Liquidator, Bombay/Appellant in appeal states that he has no objection if the three months’ time which was granted on 13^th February, 2020 is extended till the date of this order.

¶21

Having gone through the record and the order dated 13^th February, 2020, I find it appropriate to extend the time, fixed vide order dated 13^th February, 2020, till 30^th of June, 2022.

¶22

Accordingly the time to deposit the amount is extended till 30^th of June, 2022. Respondent No. 5, being the Applicant herein, shall deposit the amount of interest, to be calculated at the same rate as per the order of the Tribunal dated 13^th February, 2020, till 30^th June, 2022. Rest of the directions in order dated 13^th February, 2020 shall remain unaltered.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Misc. Application, being M.A. Diary No. 145 of 2022, is allowed. Copy of the order be supplied to Applicant and the Respondents

¶25

and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶26

File be consigned to Record room.

¶27

Order dictated, signed and pronounced in open Court.

¶28

Dated: 14^th June, 2022 07/ac

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay as Liquidator for Ms Genelec Ltd. v. Ms Rare Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Liquidator High Court Bombay as Liquidator for Ms Genelec Ltd. v. Ms Rare Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash Ruia and Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Authorised Officer the Urban Co. Operative Bank Ltd. versus Smt Manorama Mohanty and Ors.

Ms Abc Engineering Works versus State Bank of India

Union Bank Of India versus Ms Venkateshwara Textiles

Shanti Ranjan Paul and Ors. versus Union Bank Of India and Ors.

Sri Biswajit Sharma versus Icici Bank Ltd.