Partly allowed

Alsynth Remedies Ltd. and Another v. Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

DRAT19 Jul 2022REGULAR APPEAL/274/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Both appeals were filed by defendants against orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal by the first appellant and dismissed the second appeal against the dismissal of condonation of delay application. Regarding pre-deposit, the court held that exemption under Section 21 is not granted as the debt was already determined, but allowed a reduction to

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in appeal allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000 as costs. Pre-deposit exemption denied but amount reduced to 30% of debt.

Alsynth Remedies Ltd. and Another versus Dhanalaxmi Bank… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 274 of 2018)

¶3

(Arising out of O.A. 319 of 2000 in DRT-2, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

19.07.2022 Alsynth Remedies Limited & Another … Appellant -VsDhanalakshmi Bank Limited & Another … Respondents Mr. P. Nanda Kishore, Learned Counsel for Appellant Ms. Moumita Ghosh, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Debabrata Basu Ray, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2

¶6

With

¶7

(Diary No. 203 of 2019)

¶8

(Arising out of O.A. 319 of 2000 in DRT-1, Hyderabad)

¶9

M/s. Argus Cosmetics Limited … Appellant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Dhanalaakshmi Bank

¶12

… Respondent Mr. Debabrata Basu Ray, Learned Counsel for Appellant Ms. Moumita Ghosh, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Bank Mr. P. Nanda Kishore, Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2

¶13

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶14

Both the appeals relates to the same parties regarding the same loan, hence the order is being passed in both the matters simultaneously.

¶15

¶16

Appeal No. 274 of 2018 is preferred by M/s. Alsynth Remedies Limited, Defendant No. 1, against the judgment passed by Learned DRT Hyderabad dated 4^th July, 2018 in O.A. 319 of 2000 (Dhanalakshmi Bank -vs- M/s. Argus Cosmetics Limited) whereby a decree was passed against Defendants No. 1 and 2 for an amount of Rs.13,67,737.00 with future interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum with monthly rests holding both the Defendants jointly and severally liable for the same.

¶17

Appeal Diary No. 203 of 2019 is preferred by Defendant No. 2, M/s. Argus Cosmetics Limited, against an order dated 30^th July, 2019 passed by Learned DRT-1, Hyderabad in I.A. 1284 of 2019 arising out of O.A. 319 of 2000 wherein application filed by M/s. Argus Cosmetics Limited, who is Defendant No. 2, in O.A. to condone the delay of 249 days in preferring an application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 4^th July, 2018 in O.A. 319 of 2000, was dismissed.

¶18

In both the appeals, an application is filed for exemption from making pre-deposit under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

¶19

In Appeal No. 274 of 2018 (M/s. Alsynth Remedies Limited -vsDhanalakshmi Bank) an application for condonation of delay, being Tender No. 171 of 2018, is filed. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is dated 4^th July, 2018. There is delay of 55 days in filing the appeal. Learned Counsel submits that for want of proper legal advice appeal could not be filed in time.

¶20

Learned Counsel for Respondents objected and submitted that no ground has been made out for condoning the delay.

¶21

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. I find the ground to be sufficient for condoning the delay. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to payment of Rs.5,000.00 as costs to be paid to the State Legal Service Authority.

¶22

Application, being Tender No. 171 of 2018, is allowed.

¶23

¶24

Learned Counsel further submits that the Appellant is not liable to make the pre-deposit as no liability can be fastened upon him as he has supplied to goods to Defendant No. 2. Hence he is not liable to make any payment.

¶25

Admittedly, appeals are filed by the Defendants; one by Defendant No. 1 against the judgment and order dated 4^th July, 2018 while Defendant No. 2, i.e. M/s. Alsynth Remedies Limited has preferred an appeal against the order dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree.

¶26

In either case both the Defendants have already been adjudged by the Learned DRT for making payment of Rs.13,67,737.00. Debt due is determined by the DRT, hence no exemption from making predeposit under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 can be granted. However, Learned Counsel submits that the amount may be reduced. Keeping in view the financial condition, of the Appellants, the amount is reduced to an extent of 30% of the debt due determined by the Learned DRT. Since both the appeals have arisen out of one matter, the Appellants in both the appeals should deposit half of the 30% of the debt due in each appeal.

¶27

Copy of the order be retained in the records of Diary No. 203 of 2019.

¶28

List on 11^th August, 2022 for further orders.

¶29

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶30

Dated: 19^th July, 2022 05/08/ac

Alsynth Remedies Ltd. and Another v. Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alsynth Remedies Ltd. and Another v. Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd. and Anr.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tangudu Rahul versus State Bank of India and Ors.

M/S the Karur Vysya Bank Lt., versus State Bank of India

Ms Harshini Educational Society versus Indian Bank Authorised Officer

M/S Chowdhury Packers Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Saroja jute Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus SBI

Ms Poorna Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India