Disposed

Hotel Annapurna Plaza v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT20 Apr 2022REGULAR APPEAL/89/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Registrar fixed hearing date and issued directions regarding service of waiver application, status of pending Writ Petition involving self and auction purchaser possession, and compilation of outstanding order. Appellants claimed pre-deposit waiver; respondents opposed citing non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to serve waiver application; auction purchaser directed to file Writ Petition status; matter posted for next date.

Hotel Annapurna Plaza versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Dy. no.366/2021 Date:20/04/2022

¶3

M/s. Hotel Annapurna Plaza & anr……….Appellants Vs.

¶4

Bank of Baroda & ors……….Respondents

¶5

Ld. Counsel, Mr. Dulal Chandra Sarkar led by Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Ashok Pandey are present on behalf of appellants and submits that pre-deposit is not required to be deposited by the appellant, since the proviso of section 18 has been satisfied for the reason that the Bank (secured creditor) has received the entire amount as mentioned in notice under section 13(2). So far the last order passed by Ld. Registrar to that effect, appellant has filed an application by way of put up to place the waiver application before The Hon’ble Chairperson for hearing of the same. Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Pandey further submits that a Writ Petition is pending before The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta wherein the auction purchaser has prayed for transfer and mutation of the mortgage property. He claims that appellant is in physical possession of subject property and the same property is involved in the present appeal which is pending before DRAT, Kolkata. He also prays for time to make necessary correction in para:5 of IA-55/2022, which is kept with this file.

¶6

Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Dipanjan Dutta along with Ld. Counsel, Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury and Ld. Counsel, Mr. Atanu Basu are present on behalf of respondent (Bank) no.1 &2 and oppose the application of appellant by saying that this statutory pre-deposit has not yet been made by the appellant. Hence, the appeal should not be maintainable. Further, the order of this Ld. Registrar Bench dt.25.03.2022 has not been compiled by the appellants and on this noncompliance alone, the application should be rejected. The recovery made in the auction by the Bank cannot be credited in favour of the appellant to substitute his requirement of pre-deposit. On behalf of respondent Bank, Ld. Sr. Counsel, Mr. Datta submits that the issue raised by appellant regarding pending of Writ Petition before The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta is in no way connected to the present appeal.

¶7

Ld. Counsel, Mr. Somnath Roy is present for respondent no.4 and accepts and assumes the submission made on behalf of respondent Bank. He further claims that to the contrary of submission made by the appellant, the auction purchaser is also in physical possession of the mortgage property and the Writ Petition is in no way connected to the instant appeal. He also prays for dismissal of same for non-deposit of the statutory pre-deposit which is mandatory. Ld. Counsel, Mr. Roy also submits that he is yet to be served the copy of waiver petition by the appellants or Ld. Counsel representing for appellants.

¶8

None present for respondent no.3.

¶9

Appellant is directed to serve the copy of waiver application upon all the respondents. Respondent no.4, auction purchaser or his counsel is directed to file the present status of Writ Petition which is pending before The Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta.

¶10

Post this matter on 28.04.2022.

¶11

Sd/-

¶12

REGISTRAR

Hotel Annapurna Plaza v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Annapurna Plaza 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

Canara Bank versus Ms Varasiddi Vinayaka Cotton Mill

Sarada Agrovet Pvt. Ltd. versus Smt Sikha Bishal

state bank of india versus Anji Reddy

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Padma Lorry Suppliers

Canara Bank versus Ms Saha Wood Industries Prop Smt Sabita Saha

Dimension Realtors Pvt. Ltd. versus Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd.