Dismissed

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT21 Feb 2023IA/113/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal disposed of an interim application seeking an extension of time to pay the second instalment of a pre-deposit. It declined the extension due to prior warnings and opposition, dismissing the application and, by extension, the main appeal for breach of payment terms.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time application dismissed; main appeal dismissed; miscellaneous application dismissed as infructuous.

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank — DRAT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 113/2023 (Extension of time) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 1472/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. The Authorised Officer, …Respondent/s

¶6

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank & Ors.

¶7

Mr Vipinchandra Kasle, Advocate for Appellants.

¶8

Ms Hema Desai, i/b M/s. Singh & Co., Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 to 5.

¶10

Heard both sides. This application is filed by the Appellant for seeking an extension of time to pay the second instalment of the pre-deposit directed to be made.

¶11

The Appellant was directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 1,02,50,000/into two equal instalments. The first instalment was due on 31.01.2023. He could pay only ₹ 25,00,000/- and for depositing the balance he sought time. Two weeks’ time was granted. 3. It was made adequately clear in that order dated 03.02.2023 while granting an extension that no further time would be granted to pay the balance. Now the second instalment was due for payment on 21.02.2023 and the Appellant has within the extended period paid the

¶12

¶13

first instalment in full.

¶14

The second instalment was payable today but the Appellant seeks further three weeks’ time to pay the amount. He is not making any part payment towards the second instalment. The Appellant has been granted sufficient time and on the last occasion, it was specifically stated that no further extension of time will be granted.

¶15

The auction purchaser as well also the bank vehemently oppose the granting of an extension of time. The sale was completed more than two years ago and the possession of the property could not be handed over to the auction purchaser despite waiting for so long therefore he has serious objections about granting further time.

¶16

The further extension of time cannot be granted under such circumstances and therefore, the application for an extension of time is declined and the application for an extension is dismissed.

¶17

Since there is a breach of payment on the second instalment the appeal itself stands dismissed.

¶18

All Misc. Application, if any, is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

rm-29

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and Ors. v. Punjab National Bank

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

Similar cases

Mrs. Rashmi Rajesh Rajguru versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Sarvon Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shashikant & Co.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus Mrs Sadhana Bharat Rai

Bhanji Bhoiraj Nisar versus Indian Bank

Mrs Sadhana Bharat Rai versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited