R D Sons v. Bank of Baroda
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, hearing an appeal arising from a DRT Jaipur order via video conferencing, examined the appellant's readiness to deposit money as required by Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Appeal No.10/2022 Arising out of S.A.No.92/2019(DRT, Jaipur)
R.D.Sons Vs
Bank of Baroda
24.05.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Rohit Kumar and Mr. Ravi Shankar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Ravi Shankar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant states that he has recently been engaged by the appellant. Mr. Rohit Kumar who was earlier counsel for the appellant requests that he may be discharged from the case. Accordingly, Mr. Rohit Kumar is discharged from the case.
When the learned counsel for the appellant was asked whether he is prepared to make pre-deposit as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, he submits that the amount has already been deposited with the DRT. Since without making pre-deposit appeal cannot be entertained, the appellant shall make pre-deposit within three weeks. Thereafter, the appeal will be taken up for consideration.
List on 23.08.2022 for further proceedings. In case pre-deposit is made earlier, appellant can approach this Tribunal for taking up the matter at an early date.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether appellant is entitled to file appeal without making pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
R.D.Sons
- respondent
Bank of Baroda
Coram
Brijesh Sethi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court