Dismissed

Ms Om Prakash Dinesh Kumar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr.

DRAT25 May 2022REGULAR APPEAL/40/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismisses an appeal for want of compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit provision under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, holding that the appellant's deposit of Rs.50 lakhs was insufficient against a claimed debt of nearly Rs.4.87 crores.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for want of compliance with the pre-deposit condition.

Ms Om Prakash Dinesh Kumar versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Appeal No.40/2022 Arising out of Rs.40/2021 (DRT-I, Delhi)

¶3

M/s Om Prakash Dinesh Kumar Vs.

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr.

¶5

25.05.2022 Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶6

Present: Ms. Jayshree Shukla Dasgupta, Ld. Counsel for appellant

¶7

Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Ld. Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rajive R. Raj, Ld. Counsel for respondent bank

¶8

This matter has again been taken up by me through Video Conferencing.

¶9

I.A. No.156/2022

¶10

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the DRT-I, Delhi, rejecting the S.A. of the appellant herein. Under second proviso to Section 18 of the Act, the appeal cannot be entertained unless the appellant-borrower deposits with this Tribunal 50% of the debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creators or determined by the DRT whichever is less. The third proviso to the said section provides that this Tribunal may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than 25% of debt referred to in the second proviso.

¶11

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is unable to deposit more than Rs.50 lacs as pre-deposit as the financial condition of the appellant is very bad and the appellant has suffered huge losses due to Covid-19 pandemic. She further submits that the bank has not allowed the benefit of the moratorium period to the appellant which was from March to May 2020. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has also not been given the benefit of Rs.1.20 crores paid to the bank during January/February 2020 and under the circumstances, the appellant may be allowed to pursue the appeal on deposit of Rs.50 lacs.

¶12

-: 2 :-

¶13

The learned senior advocate for the respondent bank submits that the amount claimed by the bank vide notice dated 14.10.2020 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is Rs.4,87,46,287.34 and since 50% of the same comes to Rs.2,43,73,143.67, the appellant may be directed to deposit this amount in compliance of the condition of pre-deposit.

¶14

In the application filed by the appellant, no prayer has been made for reduction in the amount of pre-deposit, but has prayed to entertain the appeal without the pre-deposit. Rs.50 lacs offered to be deposited by the appellant towards pre-deposit is not even 25% of the amount claimed by the bank. In these circumstances, the appeal cannot be entertained for want of compliance of the condition of pre-deposit. It is accordingly dismissed as such.

¶15

( CHAIRPERSON )

¶16

-PK

Ms Om Prakash Dinesh Kumar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Om Prakash Dinesh Kumar v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Anr.

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

Shri Kaushal Kumar and Ors. versus Hinduja Housing Finance Limited

Union Bank of India versus m/s Manali Saree Selection and Ors.

Excellent Foundary Fluxes Company versus Syndicate Bank

Ambience Towers Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Maharashtra

Nakoda Ji and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Naveen Timber Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India