Disposed

M/S Quarmatic Time Industries v. State Bank of India

DRAT27 May 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal disposed of a miscellaneous appeal seeking withdrawal of security deposited in a related appeal. The Tribunal directed the District Recovery Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the main original application fixed for hearing with a specific deadline.

What did the court decide?

Directing the lower tribunal to dispose the main Original Application expeditiously and fixing a hearing date.

M/S Quarmatic Time Industries 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

Misc. Appeal No.29/2021

¶3

Between M/s Quarmatic Time Industries & Anr. ... Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India ... Respondent/s

¶4

And

¶5

M.A. on (Lodging) No. 269/2022 (Withdrawal of Amount) In (Appeal No. 313/2006-Disposed of)

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s Quarmatic Time Industries & Anr. ... Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India ... Respondent/s Mr. Dileep B. Nevatia, Appellant No. 2, appeared in person. Mr. R. J. Singh, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶8

-: Order dated : 27/05/2022:-

¶9

M.A. on (lodging) No. 269/2022 is an application seeking withdrawal of the amount allegedly deposited by Appellants in Appeal No. 313/2006 under the provision of Sec. 21 of RDDB & FI Act, 1993. The Appellants state that the Appeal was disposed of by an order dated 28.03.2019 of this Tribunal directing DRT-II, Mumbai to dispose of Original Application (O.A.) No. 258/2001 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. However, Respondent Bank

¶10

which was earlier State Bank of Indore merged with State Bank of India and there was no one to represent the Bank before the DRT. The P.O. was lenient and showed sufficient indulgence to adjourn the matter more than once, and thereafter, posted the matter for appearance of the Bank and the matter is presently posted on 22.06.2022 for hearing.

¶11

The Appellants had in between, filed another Appeal before this Tribunal as Misc. Appeal No. 29/2021 challenging the order of the DRT-II, Mumbai, wherein their application seeking a prayer for dismissal of the O.A. filed as I.A. No. 41/2020 was not considered by the Ld. P.O., stating that there was no urgency in spite of there being a direction to dispose the O.A. by this Tribunal. Appellants had also filed I.A. No. 421/2021 for refund of deposited amount, compensation and dismissal of the O.A. These two applications are still pending for consideration in O.A. No. 258/2001.

¶12

In the mean while, the third Defendant in the O.A. died, and no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs on record. The second Defendant, who is appearing in person, had filed an application to delete the name of Defendant No. 3 who is his mother. Even though that was allowed, the consequential amendment of the O.A. was never carried out, deleting the name of Defendant No.3 or bringing on record the legal heirs of Defendant No. 3 has now become inconsequential because no steps were taken to bring on record the

¶13

legal heirs of the deceased third Defendant on time resulting in abatement of the O.A. as against third Defendant.

¶14

The Appellants had filed application under section 21 of RDDB & FI Act, 1993 before this Tribunal for waiver of deposit. They had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court, and as per order of Hon’ble High Court, the amounts were deposited in instalments at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month as royalty and on that account, a sum of Rs.26 lacs had been deposited. This Tribunal, while considering the application u/s 21 of RDDB & FI Act, 1993, for granting waiver, noticed that out of Rs.26 lacs deposited, the Respondent Bank has already withdrawn a sum of Rs.17.70 lacs. Hence, no further amount was directed to be deposited u/s 21.

¶15

Appellants now pray that they wanted to withdraw the amount, and that the Bank may be given direction to repay the amount which was paid to them, in view of the fact that O.A. No. 258/2001 has not been disposed of. The deposit was made under directions of the Hon’ble High Court, Bombay, subject to ultimate decision in the O.A. and since the O.A. still pending and there is no amount deposited as per Sec. 21 as pre-deposit before this Tribunal in Appeal No. 313/2006, his application for withdrawal of the amount cannot be considered. The amount which was already deposited under direction of Hon’ble Bombay High Court is subject to the ultimate decision of DRT in O.A. No. 258/2001.

¶16

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find that since the DRT has already posted the O.A. on 22.06.2022 for hearing, no further adjournment be granted to the parties, and they shall be ready for hearing positively on that date. Thereafter the O.A. shall be disposed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from 20.06.2022. In case, any adjournment is sought and granted, it shall be only subject to terms of the payment of costs.

¶17

With these directions, Misc. Appeal No. 29/2021 as well as M.A. on Lodging No. 269/2022 are disposed of, and it is ordered that I.A. Nos. 41/2020 and 421/2021 shall also be considered in O.A. by the DRT and disposed of accordingly.

¶18

All other Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

Appellant herein is a senior citizen and has been litigating since 1999. This fact shall be borne in mind by Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-II, while disposing the matter expeditiously.

¶20

mks-7 &8

M/S Quarmatic Time Industries v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Quarmatic Time Industries 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

Similar cases

Manikchand Dewasi versus Canara Bank

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Nirvan Birla and 2 Ors.

Shri Arvind Dattatreya Potnis versus Bank of India & Ors.

M/S Quarmatic Time Industries versus State Bank of India

Gangaram Narayandas Through its Prop Shri Kishore Gangaram Lakhwani and Others versus Hdb Financial Services

Uco Bank versus M/S Goenka Jewellers & Ors.