Disposed

Official Liquidator High Court v. M/S Rare Asset Recondtruction

DRAT17 Jan 2023MISC APPLICATION/13/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT dismissed an appeal/objection regarding the refusal of an Official Liquidator to accept a bank draft from the respondent for compliance with a prior deposit order. The court directed the deposit of the amount with updated interest.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to accept the deposit of Rs. 10,64,41,801.00 with updated interest with the Registrar as directed.

Official Liquidator High Court versus M/S Rare Asset… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Misc. Application No. 13 of 2022

¶3

In Appeal No. 81 of 2014 (Arising out of O.A. 136 of 2001 in DRT-I, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

17.01.2023 Official Liquidator, High Court … Appellant -VsM/s. Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited … Respondent

¶6

None for Appellant

¶7

Mr. Malay Kumar Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basudeb Mukherjee, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.5/M/s. Rolex Metals

¶8

Mr. Prosenjit Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1/Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

¶9

Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Receiver

¶10

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶11

Heard the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 5/M/s. Rolex Metals as well as for Respondent No. 1/Rare Asset Reconstruction Private Limited and Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel, who was appointed as Receiver for execution of the sale deed vide order dated 13^th February, 2020 and perused the record.

¶12

An order was passed by this Tribunal on 13^th February, 2020 to the following effect:

¶13

¶14

“ Thus considering the entirety of the matter, the following orders are passed:

¶15

(1) M/s. Rolex Metals will deposit a sum of Rs.6,62,50,000/within three (3) months from today with interest thereon @7% p.a. simple from the date of order 08.11.2013 of DRT till payment, with the Appellant-Official Liquidator;

¶16

(ii) The amount of Rs.1,82,50,000/- deposited with the DRT in the shape of FDR shall also be given to the AppellantOfficial Liquidator along with interest;

¶17

(iii) The Official Liquidator will appropriate the funds in accordance with the provisions of the Liquidation procedure under The Companies Act;

¶18

(iv) It is informed that the Receiver appointed by the DRT has since been retired from the bank, therefore, considering the prayer for appointment of Receiver by this Tribunal for the purpose of execution of sale deed, Mr. N. Srinivas, Advocate is hereby appointed as Receiver to execute necessary sale deed in favour of M/s Rolex Metals after receipt of the amount by the Official Liquidator. For this purpose, his Fee is fixed at Rs.30,000/- to be borne by the intervener firm. All the incidental expenses including expenses for execution of sale deed shall also be borne by the intervener.

¶19

Accordingly, this Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.”

¶20

Thereafter time for deposit was extended to 30^th June, 2022 vide order dated 14^th June, 2022. Thereafter, it appears that offer was made to the Official Liquidator by the Applicant/Respondent No. 5 for depositing the amount as per the above order but the Learned Official Liquidator refused to accept the Bank Draft vide letter dated 5^th August, 2022 on the pretext that the Learned Official Liquidator is contemplating to file review petition in the proceedings in respect of orders dated 13^th February, 2020 and 14^th June, 2022. Demand Drafts were returned to the Applicant/Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, M.A. 13 of 2022 was filed by the Applicant/Respondent No. 5 for depositing

¶21

¶22

Demand Draft for Rs.10,64,41,801.00 in the name of Registrar, DRT-I, Kolkata in compliance of the orders passed by DRAT. Notices were issued to the Official Liquidator as well as to his Learned Counsel, Mr. Subhodip Biswas but neither they appears nor filed any objection. Applicant has also submitted that Mr. Subhodip Biswas, by a letter, intimated that he is no more representing the Official Liquidator, High Court at Bombay.

¶23

Since no objection is filed, the amount is to be deposited in compliance of the order dated 13^th February, 2020. Applicant is directed to deposit the amount with updated interest at the rate as per order dated 13^th February, 2020 with the Registrar, DRT-I, Kolkata by 30^th January, 2023.

¶24

Accordingly, M.A. 13 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶25

Copy of the order be supplied to Appellant and the Respondents and a copy be also forwarded to the concerned DRT.

¶26

File be consigned to Record room.

¶27

Order dictated, signed, dated and pronounced in open Court.

¶28

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶29

Dated: 17^th January, 2023 05/ac

Official Liquidator High Court v. M/S Rare Asset Recondtruction

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Official Liquidator High Court v. M/S Rare Asset Recondtruction

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

Ms Varasiddhi vinayaka Agro Foods versus State Bank of India

Sruti Ranjan Ray versus State Bank of India

Divyanjali Electricals Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Prabodh Mohanty and Ors. versus Mr Rajendra Tosawad and Ors.

Smt Kolla Kasturi versus Karur Vysya Bank

Ramesh Gaikward versus Bank of Maharashtra