Allowed

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi v. Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private Limited

DRAT24 Nov 2023MISC APPLICATION/111/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal condoned an 87-day delay by the appellant in filing for restoration of a dismissed appeal. The court directed the appellant to deposit ₹5,000 as cost and the outstanding balance of the pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Partial possession dispossession was deferred pending full payment.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of appeal allowed subject to payment of ₹5,000 cost and deposit of outstanding pre-deposit balance of ₹18.20 lakhs by 04.12.2023.

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 687/2023 (CoD)

¶2

In M.A. No. 111/2023 (Restoration)

¶3

¶4

(Appeal on Diary No. 429/2023- Disposed of)

¶5

Between

¶6

Gruh Suvidha Through its Prop. Shri Shanitlal Kunjulal Rathi & Ors.

… Appellant/s

V/s.

…Respondent/s

Omkar Assets Reconstructions Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent/s Mr. Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellants. Sejal Tambe, i/b Mr. Alok Mishra, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

-: Order dated: 24/11/2023:-

¶12

The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the order of this Tribunal to pay the 3^rd and 4^th instalments of the pre-deposit. The Appellant applied for restoration of the appeal at Diary No. 429/2023 which was dismissed for default. There is a delay of 87 days in filing this application for restoration. The reason stated for the delay is that the applicant had earlier filed an application that was not in proper format and therefore, the office asked him to apply in the proper format which resulted in a delay of 87 days in applying. 2. Respondent has vehemently opposed an application for condoning the delay stating that the Appellants are expected to know the format in which an application for restoration is to be filed and therefore, that is no reason for condoning the delay.

¶13

¶14

After hearing both sides, I find that the delay can be condoned by putting the Appellants to payment of the cost of ₹ 5000/- within weeks to D.R.T., Bar Association, Mumbai for purchasing books and periodicals.

¶15

The cost ordered for condonation of delay is being paid today by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants and hence, the restoration application is taken up for hearing. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that out of ₹ 35 lakhs which was directed to be deposited u/s 18 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short), the Appellants have to deposit only a balance of ₹ 13.20 lakhs more which was defaulted. He has a demand draft drawn for that amount today.

¶16

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the application for restoration stating that misrepresentations are made in the application about the filing of an extension application being on the board for hearing when the appeal was dismissed. In the order of dismissal of the appeal, it is specifically mentioned that the application filed for an extension of time was pending with the office for curing the defects which were not cured by the Appellants on time and therefore, it was not taken up for consideration.

¶17

However, since the Appellants had delayed the payment of the pre-deposit and are seeking protection against the dispossession of the property, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs more toward the pre-deposit which shall be deposited by 04.12.2023 and the amount of ₹13.20 lakhs shall be received and

¶18

¶19

deposited as directed earlier. Considering the payment of the entire balance amount which was directed to be paid earlier, the taking over possession of the property shall be deferred till the 4^th of December 2023 by which time, the Appellants shall deposit the further amount of ₹5 lakhs.

¶20

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants also undertakes to come up with a written proposal to settle the matter completely. Failure to pay any amount shall entail the dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal. It is also made clear that there shall be no further extension of time to deposit.

¶21

Post on 06.12.2023 for reporting compliance.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

psa-03

¶24

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi v. Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi v. Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Saraswat Co. Operative Bank Ltd. versus Kbc Bank N.V. and Ors.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Bhayyalal Gangadharji Jain & Anr.

M/s Anand Poultry Farm & Anr. versus Bank of India & Ors.

M/S Kashish Food versus Bank of Maharashtra

Messer Krishna Petrochemicals versus Punjab National Bank

nanduba educational and medical trust and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

The Saraswat Co. Operative Bank Ltd. versus Kbc Bank N.V. and Ors.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Bhayyalal Gangadharji Jain &amp; Anr.

M/s Anand Poultry Farm & Anr. versus Bank of India & Ors.

M/S Kashish Food versus Bank of Maharashtra

Messer Krishna Petrochemicals versus Punjab National Bank

nanduba educational and medical trust and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S Bhayyalal Gangadharji Jain & Anr.