Disposed

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT11 Dec 2023IA/801/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal granted an extension to the Appellant to deposit ₹2 crores by 28.12.2023 and ₹1.75 crores by 11.01.2024. Withdrawal of erroneous paragraphs in the application was ordered. Final time limit set before appeal dismissal without reference.

What did the court decide?

Time extended to pay ₹2 crores by 28.12.2023 and remaining balance by 11.01.2024 with no further extension; erroneous paragraphs withdrawn.

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. 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. 801/2023 (EoT) In Appeal on Diary No. 1876/2023 Between

¶2

M/s India Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶3

Mr Rishabh Shah along with Ms Ragani Singh, Ms Pooja Pandey and Ms Sanjana Salvi, i/b M/s Ragini Singh & Associates, Advocate for Appellants.

¶4

Mr Vinay Deshpande along with Ms Shobha Chavan, i/b M/s V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶5

The Appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹5 crores as predeposit by this Tribunal for entertaining the appeal as per order dated 08.11.2023. The Appellants immediately paid ₹25 lakhs on 19.10.2023 and for the balance of ₹4.75 crores directions were given to pay the said amount in two instalments. The first instalment of ₹2.50 crores was due for payment on 29.11.2023 and the second instalment of ₹2.25 crores was to be paid on 28.12.2023. The Appellants could pay only ₹1 crore towards the first instalment of ₹2.50 crores before the said date and they have filed an application as I.A. No. 801 of 2023 2160/2023 for extension of time. It is stated that the Appellants have been taking certain persons who could be prospective buyers of the property so that a good price could be fetched for the property if it was ultimately sold. Certain allegations are also raised against the

¶6

¶7

Authorised Officer about which the Respondent has very serious objections.

¶8

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that there was some error in preparing this application and that paragraphs nos. 5 to 14 were not intended to be incorporated in this application and have been erroneously incorporated and therefore, submits that those paragraphs may be ignored.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that a detailed reply will have to be filed on the I.A. 4. Today when the matter is taken up for reporting compliance. The Appellants have also filed an affidavit stating that the Appellants are willing to deposit a sum of ₹1.50 crores on or before 28.12.2023 which would be the balance payable towards the first instalment and for the payment of the second instalment of ₹2.25 crores, a further extension of three weeks is sought. The reasons stated for seeking time is that the Appellants are negotiating with certain buyers who are ready to invest and thereby generate money about which the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has very serious objections.

¶10

After having heard both sides, I find that the Appellants have attempted to make a payment towards the amount directed to be paid and the Ld. Counsel under instructions submits that they are willing to deposit a sum of ₹2 crores towards the entire balance on or by 28.12.2023 and the balance of ₹1.75 crores further extension of time be granted. The Appellants are, therefore granted time to 28.12.2023 to pay ₹2 crores towards pre-deposit and for the balance of ₹1.75 crores, a further time of two weeks is granted thereafter i.e. on or

¶11

¶12

before 11.01.2024. It is also made clear that there shall be no further extension of time to pay the balance and the appeal would stand dismissed without any reference to this Tribunal. Paragraphs nos. 5 to 14 in the application stand withdrawn by the applicants. List on 29.12.2023 for reporting compliance regarding payment of ₹2 crores.

¶13

Sd/Chairperson

¶14

mks-14

¶15

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank 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

Nitin C Thakkar versus State Bank of India

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus The Official Liquidator, High Court Gujarat acting as Official Liquidator of Mahendra Mills Ltd.

Shri Kiran S/O Baburao Kulthe versus State Bank of India and Anr.

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta versus Capri Global Capital Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Vaidyanatha karkhana and Others

Mrs. Dakshata Singh versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited