Allowed

Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. v. Doha Bank Qsc

DRAT24 Mar 2022REGULAR APPEAL/71/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal subject to deposit of costs. It granted a stay on the impugned order and recovery proceedings, noting no objection from the respondent and that over 50% of the decretal amount had been deposited as pre-deposit. An application to take on record additional documents was also allowed.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed subject to deposit of Rs. 10,000; stay granted on impugned order and recovery proceedings; application to take on record additional documents allowed.

Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. versus Doha Bank Qsc — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

¶2

Appeal No. 71/2020 Arising out of O.A. No. 207/2017 (DRT-II, Chandigarh)

¶3

Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. Vs Doha Bank QSC

¶4

24.03.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi

¶5

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. Pragya Puri, Ld. Counsel for appellant/applicant

¶6

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Pandey and Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank

¶7

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

¶8

I.A. No.265/2020 (Application for condonation of delay)

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is a delay of 366 days in filing the appeal. He submits that the appeal could not be filed in time because the earlier advocate, Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, did not apprise the appellant/applicant about the order of the Tribunal and the files were lying with him. The applicant had come to know about the order when the matter was listed before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No.8134/2019 titled as ‘Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Doha Bank QSC. & Ors.’ on 07.02.2020 and thereafter the appeal was filed on 16.03.2020. He further submits that the appeal in that way is within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge.

¶10

The learned counsel for respondent states that the appellant Company ought to have been vigilant and should not have been dependent upon the advocate only.

¶11

This Tribunal has given its thought to the matter and keeping in mind the above facts and circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the DRAT Bar Association.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a prayer in the main appeal for stay of the impugned order dated 25.02.2019 vide which a decree in the sum of Rs.7,82,24,208/- with costs, current and future simple interest @13.75% has been pressed against the defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally.

¶13

The learned counsel submits that against the said amount, the appellants have already deposited a total amount of Rs.6,12,42,588.25 with this Tribunal towards compliance of pre-deposit. He, therefore, prays for stay of recovery proceedings. Ld. Counsel for the respondent bank has no objection to the same.

¶14

Heard. In view of no objection of the learned counsel for the respondent and further in view of the fact that a substantial amount which is more than 50% of the decretal amount already stands deposited, the impugned order as well as the recovery proceedings pursuant thereto pending before the R.O. are stayed qua the appellant.

¶15

I.A. No.261/2020

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that another interim application for taking on record certain additional documents is also pending for disposal. Learned counsels for the respondents have no objection to the same. The application is, therefore, allowed. The additional documents be kept on record.

¶17

Put up for final arguments on 12.08.2022.

¶18

(CHAIRPERSON)

¶19

-pk

Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. v. Doha Bank Qsc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lumax Auto Technologies Ltd. v. Doha Bank Qsc

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

Ritu Singla versus Icici Bank Limited

G.R Malhotra and Anr. versus Canara Bank and Ors.

Smt. Sumitra Devi and Ors. versus State Bank of India

M/S Team Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Bank of India

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Smt Neelam Rani

Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) versus Smt Suman Sharma