Allowed

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT28 Mar 2023MISC APPLICATION/19/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of two miscellaneous applications; one sought extension of time for pre-deposit to save a dismissed appeal, and the other sought restoration of the appeal dismissed for default. Both were granted contingent on payment of cost.

What did the court decide?

Grant of extension of time and restoration of appeal, both conditional upon payment of ₹1 lakh cost to the Respondent Bank.

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi versus Bank of Baroda — DRAT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

M.A. No. 19/2023

M.A. No. 26/2023

(Appeal on Diary No. 31/2023-Disposed of)

¶7

Between

¶8

Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi … Appellant/s V/s. Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s

¶9

Mr Minesh K. Shah, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Chetan Shah, i/b Mr Rajesh L. Shethia, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶10

-: Order dated: 28/03/2023:-

¶11

M.A. No. 19 of 2023 is an application seeking an extension of time to comply with a direction of this Tribunal to make a pre-deposit of

¶12

₹6 lakhs.

¶13

As per the order dated 16.01.2023, the Appellant was directed to make the pre-deposit of ₹6 lakhs in two equal instalments. The first instalment of ₹3 lakhs was to be paid on or before 30.01.2023 and the same has been complied with. The second instalment of ₹3 lakhs was due for payment on 13.02.2023. The Appellant did not comply with that order. As a result, the appeal stands dismissed on 14.02.2023. The Appellant has produced a pay order dated 22.02.2023 for Rs.3 lakhs as payment towards the second instalment

¶14

and that seeks an extension of time for depositing the amount by

¶15

¶16

filing M.A. No. 19 of 2023. Since the appeal was dismissed consequent to self-working order, the amount cannot be received unless the Appeal is restored.

¶17

M.A. No. 26 of 2023 is filed for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for default for non-payment of the predeposit.

¶18

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that indulgence may be shown considering the impecunious situation of the Appellant who somehow managed to deposit ₹3 lakhs but there was some delay in securing the amount for payment of the second instalment of ₹3 lakhs within the stipulated time. However, the Appellant did not file any application for extension of time before the date expired.

¶19

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank vehemently opposed the applications stating that the Appellant has been granted sufficient indulgence by directing a payment of only ₹6 lakhs towards pre-deposit and in view of the fact that he has not complied with the order, the appeal was rightly dismissed and therefore, no further time being granted to the Appellant to make the balance payment.

¶20

The Appellant has in his affidavit accompanying the applications detailed the reasons for delay. Even the D.R.T. had refused to grant the protection order to the Appellant because he failed to deposit ₹9 lakhs in two instalments as directed. It is seen that the Appellant has not been prompt in complying with the directions of the D.R.T. or D.R.A.T.

¶21

¶22

Under the circumstances, these applications for extension of time and restoration of appeal shall be granted only on payment of cost. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to pay a sum of ₹1 lakhs as cost to the Respondent Bank. The said amount shall be adjusted towards outstanding liability due from the Appellant. The amount shall be paid within a period of two weeks from today.

¶23

The orders of restoration of the appeal shall be subject to the payment of cost. Post on 17.04.2023 before the Registrar for reporting compliance as regard payment of cost.

¶24

Sd/-
Chairperson

¶25

mks-3

¶26

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi v. Bank of Baroda

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

Dbm Geotechnics Constructions Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Assest Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. versus Quick N Safe Service Private Limited & Ors.

Asset Reconstruction Company (I) Ltd. versus Image Plus(India) Private Limited & Ors.

J C Flowers Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. In the matter between Yes Bank versus Belief Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Ranjeet Darshan Punjabi versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of India versus State Bank of India & Ors.