M/s Prabhu Construction and Anr. v. Canara Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellants sought restoration of a dismissed Miscellaneous Appeal and extension of time to deposit a second installment of pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal dismissed the application, refusing restoration or extension due to the failure to comply with previous orders and deposit requirements.
What did the court decide?
Application dismissed with costs of ₹10,000/- awarded to the Respondent Bank.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
M.A. (Diary) No. 1025/2022 In
(Misc. Appeal No. 20/2022 –Disposed of)
Between
M/s. Prabhu Construction & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.
Canara Bank …Respondent/s
Mr Mathew J. Nedumpara along with Ms Hemali Kurne and Ms Shameem Fayiz, i/b M/s. Nedumpara & Nedimpara Advocates, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr Bidan, i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated: 11/10/2022:-
- The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed on 11.10.2022 by the Appellants seeking urgent relief.
- This is an application at lodging for restoration of Misc. Appeal No.20/2022. and for an extension of time to deposit the second installment of the pre-deposit contemplated under the first proviso to Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act. On filing the Appeal, the Appellants sought a waiver of deposit by filing I.A. No. 68/2022. Vide order dated 10.05.2022. This Tribunal found that the Appellants are due to pay more than ₹7 Crores but considering that he has an arguable case, and is under a financial strain, indulgence was shown and he was directed to pay a sum of ₹3 Crores as predeposit in two equal installments. The first installment of ₹1.5 Crores was to be deposited on 07.06.2022 and the second installment was to be deposited on 28.06.2022. There was also an order of status quo made by this Tribunal on the deposit of the first installment on time. The Appellants complied with the order partially by depositing ₹1.5 Crores within time. In the second installment, they were not able to
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appeal should be restored given the default in depositing the required pre-deposit amount.
Whether an extension of time should be granted for depositing the second installment of the pre-deposit.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M/s. Prabhu Construction & Anr.
- respondent
Canara Bank
Coram
Ashok Menon
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · October
- CNR
- 271090010252022
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court