Disposed

Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

DRAT10 Apr 2023IA/517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal fixed a pre-deposit of ₹12 crores for the appellant to secure a stay on SARFAESI measures. The court rejected the contention that account statement discrepancies invalidated the case, noting that financial impecuniosity was not established.

What did the court decide?

Stay of further SARFAESI measures granted conditional upon deposit of ₹12 crores in four instalments.

Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. versus Canara… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 517/2022(WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 987/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. … Appellant/s Ltd.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Canara Bank & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr Anshul Anjarlekar, i/b M/s. Raval-Shah & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

Ms Vaishali Bhilare, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 & 2.

¶10

Ms Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

¶11

-: Order dated: 10/04/2023:-

¶12

The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 26.08.2022 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.) dismissing the Securitisation Application(S.A.) No. 07 of 2021 filed by the Appellant. The Appellant is a company and seeks to quash the Sarfaesi measures initiated against it by the Respondent Bank stating that the demand notice under Sec. 13(2)of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) has not been properly served. It is also contended that the Rules pertaining to the publication of notice have not been complied with. No proper punchanama has been prepared for taking over the possession of the property. Sec. 13(2) Notice is defective for the reason that Sec.

¶13

¶14

13(3) has not been complied with by giving a break-up of the amount that is due and demanded. The consequent sale of the property is also challenged for non-compliance with Rules 6(2) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and the sale certificate is contrary to the sale notice.

¶15

The Respondent Bank has opposed the application stating that as of the date of filing the appeal the amount due from the Appellant is ₹26,85,48,982.16 and the demand notice under Sec. 13(2) demanded a sum of ₹7,32,93,078 as on 02.112012.

¶16

It is also pointed out by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant that as per the statement of account attached to the Appeal Memorandum as of 21.10.2020, the amount due from the Appellant is ₹44,95,847/- and as per the sale notice dated 03.07.2020 the amount due from the borrower is ₹23,62,96,025.84. The Appellant contends that the statement of account as required under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act is not produced and that amount is yet to be determined and the correctness of the amount claimed is also a point of contention raised by the Appellant. The property has already been sold and the amount realised is not sufficient to wipe out the entire debt as claimed. Hence, the correctness of the amount is not of any consequence. Even after disposal of the S.A., the Respondent Bank is at liberty to realise the balance amount due from the Appellant by resorting to the procedure under RDB Act and therefore, a rough calculation of the amount due would be sufficient for determining the pre-deposit to be made by the Appellant. Considering the amount due as stated in

¶17

¶18

the accounts submitted by the Respondent is ₹ 26,85,48,982.16/-. The Appellant does not have any strong prima facie case because there is a determination of all these contentions raised by the D.R.T. and prima facie I do not find any defects in those findings. The financial strain on the part of the Appellant is also not established since the balance of accounts statements are not forthcoming to prove the impecunious condition of the Appellant company. Hence, the Appellant is directed to deposit a sum of ₹12 crores as pre-deposit in four equal instalments of ₹ 3 crores each. The first instalment shall be payable within three weeks on or before 01.05.2023 and the subsequent instalments shall be payable within two weeks each therefrom. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

On payment of the first instalment within the stipulated time, the Appellants shall be entitled to stay of the further Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

Post on 02.05.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment of the first instalment.

¶25

Sd/Chairperson

¶26

mks-6

¶27

Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Goldie Sud versus Punjab National Bank

Goldie Sud versus Punjab National Bank

Shri. Balkrishna Mohiniraj Bhagat(This is) through his LRs versus Punjab National Bank and Ors.

M/s Pranav Omprakash Khake Distilleries versus Union Bank of India

Mr. Rajindra Ghai and Anr. versus Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited

Mohammed Shahid Rafi versus Hdfc Bank