Disposed

Harshlok Motors India Pvt. Limited v. kotak mahindra prime limited

DRAT2 Nov 2023IA/724/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal granted a four-week extension for the appellant to pay ₹48 lakhs of the remaining pre-deposit balance for hearing the appeal on the conditions set in the original order, after observing the appellant's earnest efforts to comply.

What did the court decide?

To pay the entire sum of ₹48 lakhs within four weeks from the date of the order, with no further extension.

Harshlok Motors India Pvt. Limited versus kotak mahindra… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 724/2023 (Extension of Time)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 845/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Harshlok Motors India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s.

¶5

The Authorized Officer,

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

¶8

Mr. Puneet Gogad along with Ms. Komal Gogad, Advocate for Appellants.

¶9

Mr. R.L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶11

The Appellants were directed by this Tribunal to deposit the sum of ₹80 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal and ₹8 lakhs was paid immediately on the date of the order and the balance of ₹72 lakhs was to be paid in three equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each.

¶12

The Appellants managed to pay the 1st instalment that was due on 19.10.2023. The 2^nd instalment of ₹24 lakhs is due today and the 3^rd instalment is due on 16.11.2023. The Appellants seek an extension of time for the payment of the 2^nd and the 3^rd instalments.

¶13

It is stated that the Appellants have to pledge their gold ornaments for raising a loan for making the deposit. They have also liquidated the mutual funds and securities for depositing the 1^st instalment a sum of ₹24 lakhs and therefore, the earnest attempt has

¶14

¶15

been made by the Appellants to comply with this Tribunal’s order. The Appellants, therefore, sought an extension for payment of the 2^nd and the 3^rd instalment.

¶16

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank vehemently opposed this application stating that all the aspect of financial strain has been considered and indulgence shown in favour of the Appellants by directing the payment of the amount in three equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each and therefore, the no case made out for further indulgence by extension of time to pay the amount.

¶17

It is stated that the Appellants have also not pleaded in the application regarding the source from where they are going to raise the balance amount of ₹48 lakhs.

¶18

After having heard both sides, I find that the Appellants have made out earnest attempt to pay the amount and it is also pertinent to note that subsequent to the demand notice the Appellants have paid a certain amount when the matter was before the D.R.T. which indicate that the Appellants are making earnest attempt to discharge of the loan and also to deposit the amount directed by this Tribunal.

¶19

Considering this aspect, I direct that the entire sum of ₹48 lakhs shall be paid within the period of four weeks from today. There shall be no further extension of time.

¶20

Post on 01.12.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the payment.

¶21

Interim order shall continue till the next date of hearing.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

psa-05

¶24

Harshlok Motors India Pvt. Limited v. kotak mahindra prime limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshlok Motors India Pvt. Limited v. kotak mahindra prime limited

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

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr C P Ravindranath Menon Liquidator, Bank of Karad(In Liquidation)

State Bank of India versus Mr C P Ravindranath Menon Liquidator, Bank of Karad(In Liquidator)

jagdishbhai ghanshyambhai shah versus the authorized officer the bhagyadaya Co. op bank Ltd.

Mr. Vilas Vasant Gandhe versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

M/s. Europa Foams Pvt. Ltd. versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Ms Mitexco and Ors. versus Canara Bank