Disposed

Icici Bank Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Ors.

DRAT14 Sept 2023MISC APPEAL/52/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in MA 52/2016 disposed of an appeal regarding an inter se agreement dispute over Rs.5 Crores. The court refrained from merits without expressing an opinion on the challenged order and directed the DRT to decide the issue after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the appeal without expressing opinion on correctness of challenged order; directed DRT to decide the apportionment dispute on merits; closed all pending IAs.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus State Bank of India & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI Dated the 14^th of September, 2023

¶2

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar CHAIRPERSON

¶3

MA 52/2016

¶4

[IA No. 303/2016 in I.A. No. 286/2016 in OA No. 151/2016 of DRT II Chennai )

¶5

Between

¶6

ICICI Bank Limited,

¶7

Represented by its Chief Manager/Authorised Officer, Regional office at ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No.24, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058.

¶8

Appellant

¶9

AND

¶10

State Bank of India,

¶11

Represented by its Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Red Cross Building, No.32, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶12

M/s. Oceanic Tropical Fruits Private Limited, Represented by its Chairman and MD, No. 6. I Floor, Wellington Estate,

¶13

53, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶14

M/s. Oceanic Edible International Limited., Represented by its Chairman and MD, No. 6, I Floor, Wellington Estate,

¶15

53, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶16

¶17

Mr. A. Joseb Raj,

¶18

M/s. Oceanic Edible International Limited., Chairman and Managing Director, No. 29, Zackaria Colony 4^th Street, Chennai – 600 094.

¶19

Mrs. Vimala Joseb, Director, W/o, Mr. A. Joseph Raj, No.29, Zackaria Colony 4^th Street, Chennai – 600 094.

¶20

Mr. Ramesh Narayanan Chief Financial Officer, No.6, I Floor, Wellington Estate, 53, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶21

Mrs. Bhanu Ramesh W/o. Mr. S. Ramesh Narayanan, No.6, I Floor, Wellington Estate, 53, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶22

Mrs. Sophia James Walter, W/o Mr. James Walter, No.6, I Floor, Wellington Estate, 53, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶23

Mrs. A. Maria Salome, W/o Mr. M. Arokiyasamy, No. 29, Zackaria Colony 4^th Street, Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

¶24

Respondents

¶25

Counsel for Appellant Bank : Mr. Karthik Seshadri Counsel for R1 Bank : Mr M. L. Ganesh

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Appeal is preferred against Order dated

¶29

02.09.2016 in IA No. 303/2016 in I.A. No. 286/2016 in OA No. 151/2016 of DRT-II, Chennai.

¶30

Brief facts leading to this Appeal are as follows:-

¶31

First Respondent Bank herein filed an Application to

¶32

lift the Interim Order dated 20.05.2016 passed in IA 286/2016 in OA 151/2016.

¶33

Appellant Bank herein filed Counter to uphold the Order dated 20.05.2016 in IA 286/2016 in OA 151/2016.

¶34

Tribunal below, on a consideration of material papers, vacated the Interim Order and dismissed IA 286/2016 as not maintainable, and allowed IA 303/2016; aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is preferred.

¶35

¶36

According to Advocate for Appellant Bank, there is an Inter se Agreement among Appellant ICICI Bank Limited, first Respondent State Bank of India and other consortium of Banks. It appears that as per Orders of DRT, Hyderabad, a sum of Rs.5 Crores was deposited with first Respondent, State Bank of India, as per conditional Order. Now, the grievance of Appellant Bank is that said amount has to be apportioned as per the Inter se Agreement dated 21.03.2012. According to Advocate for Appellant, the OA is still pending, and in the OA, a specific plea is raised as to the said Agreement and property in dispute is also shown in the Schedule of properties.

¶37

According to Advocate for first Respondent, State Bank of India, this issue is already finalized by NCLT, and Appellant Bank herein already suffered adverse Order, and therefore, nothing is to be decided now.

¶38

¶39

On a consideration of submissions of both side Advocates, without going to merits and demerits of the case, as the dispute is as to apportionment of Rs.5 Crores deposited with first Respondent, I deem it appropriate, by directing DRT to decide this issue, after considering the contentions and rival contentions of both parties, on merits, in accordance with law, would meet the ends of justice.

¶40

With above observations, Appeal in MA 52/2016 is disposed off, without expressing any opinion as to correctness of Order under challenge. Both parties shall bear their own costs. All pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶41

[Dictated to Athistamani, PS, in open court, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me, this 14^th of September, 2023]

¶42

[ Justice S. Ravi Kumar] CHAIRPERSON

¶43

Icici Bank Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Ltd. v. State Bank of India & Ors.

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

M/s Dlf Home Developers Ltd. versus Icici Bank Limited

Mr B Vidyaranya S o Late Mr Basavaraj versus Punjab National Bank

Mr B Vidyaranya S o Late Mr Basavaraj versus Punjab National Bank

Sri R K Anantha versus Canara Bank

K C Shafeeque versus Hdfc Bank

M/S .Sark Spice Produce Pvt. Ltd. versus South Indian Bank Limited