Disposed

Pruthvi Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Axis Bank and Anr.

DRAT17 May 2023IA/393/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal modified a pre-deposit order in a secured assets recovery matter. The Appellants withdrew their challenge to the sale of the primary secured asset but maintained challenges against stock and hypothecated goods. The Tribunal recalculated the payable pre-deposit at Rs. 87.5 lakres.

What did the court decide?

Barred from modifying the specified pre-deposit amount as per the updated calculation, and directed to pay Rs. 87.50 Lakhs within two weeks.

Pruthvi Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. versus Axis Bank and… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 393/2022 (Modification)

¶3

In I.A. No. 323/2022(WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 655/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s Pruthvi Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. &Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Axis Bank Ltd. &Anr. …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr PrashantPandit along with Mr Jay Pandit, Advocate for Appellants.

¶8

Mr Chetan C Agarwal along with Mr SachinPawar, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶9

Mr H. V. Metaliya, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶10

-: Order dated: 17 /05/2023:-

¶11

This is an application filed by the Appellants to modify the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 26.07.2022 in I.A. No. 323 of 2022. The total amount outstanding as of date was assessed at roughly around ₹4 crores and considering the fact that the director who is representing the company is very ill and that the Appellants are undergoing financial strain, the mandatory pre-payment was fixed at₹1.10 crores payable in two equal instalments of ₹55 lakhs each. 2. The Appellants have filed this application for modification of the order stating that they are now not challenging the sale of the secured asset which was sold for ₹2,35,40,000/- and therefore,

¶12

¶13

the amount payable as pre-deposit may be deducted and considered as already paid as the challenge is now is limited to the sale of the stock lying in the factory premises and hypothecated goods alone.

¶14

The first Respondent Bank has filed objections to the modification application stating that the Appellants are not entitled to any concession and that on non-payment of the amount, the appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. That apart, contentions are also raised regarding the disqualification of the directors of the company who had filed the present appeal, under Sec. 164 (2)(a), 167(2)(1) and 167(3) (3) of the Companies Act. Furthermore, it is also stated that the claim about the plant and machinery gets falsified as the plant and machinery were attached to the earth/land. Under the circumstances, the challenge to the sale of the plant, machinery and stock which are hypothecated with the Bank would amount to challenge of the entire sale. The Appellants also did not file any application for the removal of the stock and raw materials lying on the premises.

¶15

After having heard both sides, I find that even if the sale is not challenged, the amount payable by the Appellants would come to around Rs.1.75 crores. The Appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹87,50,000/- as pre-deposit. Since sufficient time has already been granted to the Appellants to pay the predeposit, they are directed to deposit the aforesaid modified amount of pre-deposit within a period of two weeks, on or before 31.05.2023, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without any further reference of the Tribunal.

¶16

¶17

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶18

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

¶19

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondents are at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶20

Post on 01.06.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

mks- 1

¶23

Pruthvi Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Axis Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pruthvi Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Axis Bank and Anr.

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

Mrs Izabel F Nunes versus Union Bank of India

Assets Reconstuction Company India Ltd. versus M/S Vamecha Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India

Rajmudra Real Estate Pvt.Ltd versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ramchandra Khandu Shinde versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Vilas Vasant Gandhe versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. (Earc)