Allowed

Saroja jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. SBI

DRAT21 Apr 2022REGULAR APPEAL/16/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition before the DRAT concerns an application for exemption from a mandatory pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The tribunal granted the exemption, noting that previous calculations revealed no outstanding dues to the bank after property sales.

What did the court decide?

Application for exemption from pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 allowed; appeal registered.

Saroja jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus SBI — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Diary No. 36 of 2019)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 68 of 2012 in DRT, Visakhapatnam)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

21.04.2022 Saroja Jute Mills Private Limited … Appellant -vsState Bank of India & 3 Others … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellant

¶7

Mr. Soudip Pal Choudhuri with Ms. Saswati Sikder, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank

¶8

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶9

I.A. 378 of 2019

¶10

This application is for exemption from making pre deposit under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that earlier an appeal was filed, which was registered as Tender No. 40A/15/77, against the judgment of DRT, Visakhapatnam in S.A. 68 of 2012. This appeal was allowed, vide judgment and order dated 12^th June, 2018, and the matter was remanded to Learned DRT to decide the S.A. afresh.

¶11

In compliance of the order, Learned DRT, Visakhapatnam decided the S.A. and dismissed the same. Against the said dismissal order, present appeal is preferred.

¶12

It transpires from the order dated 3^rd March, 2017, passed in Tender No. 40A/15/77 that the waiver application was allowed considering the fact that an amount of

¶13

¶14

Rs.2,15,76,498.00, demanded in the notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, an amount of Rs.3,15,51,921.00 was recovered by sale of various properties. Accordingly, there was no outstanding dues against the Appellant, rather, some excess amount has been recovered. This factual matrix could not be disputed by the Learned Counsel for Respondents. Accordingly, the waiver was allowed.

¶15

Circumstances are not changed in this appeal. So far as notice of demand and proceeds of sale are concerned, they are same. Accordingly, the case is made out for granting exemption from making pre deposit by the Appellant.

¶16

Accordingly, the waiver application, being I.A. 278 of 2019, is allowed.

¶17

Registry is directed to register the appeal by supplying a regular number.

¶18

Respondents may file Affidavit-in-Opposition within a period of four weeks with advance copy to the Appellant; rejoinder, if any be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶19

List the matter on 19^th July, 2022.

¶20

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶21

Dated: 21^st April, 2022 01/ac

Saroja jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. SBI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroja jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. SBI

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund versus Datre Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Hdfc Bank versus Ms Shree Shyam Tech India Pvt. Ltd. And Others

Model Financial Corporation Ltd. versus Indian Bank Of Ors.

Shri Manoj Jayaswal and Ors. versus Idbi Bank Limited and Ors.

State Bank of India versus Emerald Mineral Exim Private Limited And Anothers

Union Bank of India versus Surya Prabhu Shipping Service