Ms Mcsys Auto Ancilliaries Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Mr Manohar Selvaraj v. State Bank of India

DRAT24 Aug 2022REGULAR APPEAL/51/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal fixed the statutory deposit required to maintain appeals filed by borrowers against the State Bank of India. It reduced the original claimed amount by post-notice payments and directed deposit of 50% of the reduced difference.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs.46,19,853/- within two weeks; else appeals to be rejected.

Ms Mcsys Auto Ancilliaries Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Mr Manohar… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

IA 303/2022

A.IR:230/2022

M/S Mcsys Auto Ancilliaries Pvt Ltd & Ors V/S A.O.,State Bank Of India

¶6

24/08/2022

¶7

COMMON ORDER

¶8

These three appeals, viz., AIR 230/2022, AIR 234/2022 and AIR 243/2022 are filed against a Common Order dated 30.6.2022 by Tribunal below (DRT-II, Chennai) in SA 297/2021, SA 350/2021 and SA 268/2021 respectively.

¶9

It is represented that SA 297/2021 is filed challenging Section 14 proceedings, SA 350/2021 is filed challenging sale conducted pursuant to sale notice and SA 268/2021 is filed challenging impugned sale notice.

¶10

IA Nos. 303/2022, 304/2022 and 305/2022 are filed in AIR 230/2022, AIR 234/2022 and AIR 243/2022 respectively, seeking waiver of statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act.

¶11

Counters of the respondent bank filed.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

It is represented that as per Section 13(2) notice, amount claimed is Rs.3,16,26,555/- and subsequent to 13(2) notice, with the permission of respondent bank, one of mortgaged properties was sold for a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- and the amount realized is remitted in the month of January, 2019, which fact is admitted by respondent bank in the common counter filed in all three SARFAESI applications. It is further submitted that subsequent to payment of aforesaid amount, OTS proposal was given for a sum of Rs.77,36,220.16p and appellants paid a sum of Rs.3,86,850/- being 5% of OTS amount and this amount is also admitted by respondent bank in paragraph 23 of its common counter. It is further submitted that total payments after 13(2) notice comes to more than 75%, therefore, statutory deposit may be waived.

¶14

Advocate for respondent opposed and submitted that appellants have not made out any ground for reducing the statutory deposit.

¶15

I have perused material papers and impugned common order dated 30.6.2022.

¶16

As per Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, for entertaining appeal, amount claimed by the Secured Creditor or amount determined by Tribunal below has to be taken into consideration. In this case, admittedly, no amount is determined by Tribunal below.

¶17

Therefore, claim of respondent bank has to be taken, which is indicated in Section 13(2) notice. As there are payments subsequent to Section 13(2) notice, those amounts have to be deducted from out of notice amount to fix the claim of respondent bank. If it is done so, amount due after deduction of payments subsequent to 13(2) notice comes to Rs.92,39,705/-. For entertaining the appeal, appellants have to deposit 50% of aforesaid amount, which comes to Rs.46,19,853/-.

¶18

Therefore, appellants shall deposit the said amount i.e., Rs.46,19,853/- within two weeks from today, i.e. on or before 7.9.2022, failing which, all three appeals stand rejected.

¶19

On making such deposit, Registrar shall invest the same in a nationalized bank for a reasonable period and renew it periodically, till further orders are passed.

¶20

Post the matter on 8.9.2022 for compliance of deposit.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

Ms Mcsys Auto Ancilliaries Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Mr Manohar Selvaraj v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Mcsys Auto Ancilliaries Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Mr Manohar Selvaraj v. State Bank of India

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

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus M/s Ravi Shankar Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

S.Shanmuga Sundaram versus Ayyanar Super Market Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Marg Limited & Ors. versus Indian Bank & Ors.

The South Indian Concerns Ltd. versus Canara Bank

The South Indian Concerns Ltd. versus Canara Bank & Ors.

The South Indian Concerns Ltd. versus Canara Bank & Ors.