Disposed

Messrs. Parthesh Developers v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT28 Jun 2022REGULAR APPEAL/32/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal against a clerical order. It accepted a belatedly submitted demand draft for a pre-deposit due to a timing issue on the deadline day. The tribunal also directed corrections to a typographical error in a prior order.

What did the court decide?

Late submitted demand draft accepted; corrections to previous order made; post on 19.07.2022 for second tranche.

Messrs. Parthesh Developers versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

Appeal No. 32/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Parthesh Developers & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bank of Baroda & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Rafeeq Peermohideen along with Mr. T. N. Tripathi, i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi& Co., Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr. H. P. Kar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2.

¶8

-: Order dated : 28/06/2022 :-

¶9

As per the order dated 06.06.2022 of this Tribunal, the first tranche of pre-deposit was to be made on or before 27.06.2022. The Appellants had drawn a Demand Draft for that amount and had reached the office on 27.06.2022 but by that time the office was already closed since it was past 6 o’clock and the Demand Draft was not received by the office. The Appellants have now filed an affidavit seeking the indulgence of this Tribunal to receive the Demand Draftfor ₹3,50,00,000/- which was drawn on 27.06.2022.

¶10

In view of the fact that the Demand Draft was already drawn on 27.06.2022 but presented belatedly at the end of the day, I am inclined to accept the Demand Draft after condoning the delay and deposit is taken as sufficient compliance with the payment of the first tranche of the amount is directed to be taken.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel for the Respondents has filed an application for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 06.06.2022 in I.A. No. 121/2022 regarding some corrections to be carried out in the

¶12

¶13

order. It is apparently a typographical/clerical mistake which needs correction.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel for the Appellant was also heard and accordingly it is ordered to make the following corrections:

¶15

In paragraph no. 1 after the words “dated 21.04.2022”, the followingshall be added, “though have filed the present Appeal in respect of Judgment in S.A. 136/2021 alone.”

¶16

In paragraph no. 8 at line number 6, instead of “An”, the same shall be corrected as “No”

¶17

In paragraph no. 18 at line number 3 alphabet “t” which is entered in between the words “necessity t for payment” is struck off.

¶18

Certified copies, if already issued to the parties shall be recalled and corrected copies be issued. The order which has already been uploaded on the website of the office shall also be corrected.

¶19

Post on 19.07.2022 for compliance withthe second tranche.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

mks-11

¶22

Messrs. Parthesh Developers v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Messrs. Parthesh Developers v. Bank of Baroda

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

M/s. shree ram rayon versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

M/S Triumpg Steel Udyog Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Ms Aditi Re Rolling Mills Limited versus State Bank of India

M/s. Tirupati Development Corporation versus Jana Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Satyajit Balasaheb Kadam & Anr. versus The Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd. & 6 Ors.

M/S Parekh Platinum Limited & Ors. versus Ifci Limited & Ors.