Allowed

Bandu Pandurang Salunke v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

DRAT11 Dec 2023MISC APPLICATION/116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The ARAT at Mumbai considered the restoration of a dismissed appeal. The appellant failed to deposit the balance pre-deposit within time. The court allowed restoration subject to immediate payment of the balance, a penalty, regularisation of dues, and deferred possession.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was restored. The appellant was directed to pay the balance pre-deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs, and regularise the account; possession takes over was deferred.

Bandu Pandurang Salunke versus Tata Capital Financial Services Limited — DRAT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

M.A. No. 116/2023 (Restoration)

¶3

And I.A. No. 800/2023(EoT) In Appeal on Diary No. 718/2023 Between

¶4

Bandu Pandurang Salunke … Appellant/s

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s Mangesh M.D. Patel, Advocate for Appellant. Mr R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. -: Order dated: 11/12/2023:-

¶7

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed on 06.12.2023 by the Appellant seeking urgent relief.

¶8

The Appellant was, by order dated 17.05.2023 directed to deposit a sum of ₹25 lakhs as pre-deposit. The Appellant deposited ₹10 lakhs and there was a balance of ₹15 lakhs was to be deposited on or before 07.06.2023. The Appellant did not deposit the amount within time which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The Appellant has now applied for restoration of the appeal and also seeks time to pay the third instalment of ₹15 lakhs today. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he is ready with a demand draft for ₹15 lakhs to pay towards the third instalment.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently opposes the application stating that the Appellant has awakened from his slumber only on receiving the notice of dispossession scheduled

¶10

¶11

on the 12^th instant. There are no reasons stated for non-payment of the pre-deposit in time. As of date, there is a balance of ₹70,89,000/dues from the Appellant.

¶12

After hearing both sides. I find that the Appellant has not been vigilant enough to pay the pre-deposit within time and has considerably delayed payment of the amount. Under the circumstances, he has to be put certain terms for non-payment of the pre-deposit in time. Apart from the payment of the balance amount of ₹15 lakhs, the Appellant is directed to pay the Respondent a sum of ₹5 lakhs more which shall be adjusted towards the arrears due within the period of three weeks i.e. on or before 26.12.2023, failing which the application shall stand dismissed.

¶13

On the payment of the balance amount of ₹15 lakhs, the taking over of possession shall be deferred till the next date of hearing. 6. The Appellant is also directed to regularise the account and pay the dues to the Respondent preferably before the next date of hearing. The Appeal shall be restored to file on the compliance of the aforementioned conditions.

¶14

Post on 27.12.2023 for reporting compliance regarding deposit and payment.

¶15

Sd/Chairperson

¶16

mks-07

¶17

Bandu Pandurang Salunke v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bandu Pandurang Salunke v. Tata Capital Financial Services 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

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.

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

Mr Haresh Mohanlal Mehta versus Capri Global Capital Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus Vaidyanatha karkhana and Others