Disposed

Dr Jagdish Sharma v. State Bank of India

DRAT25 Jul 2023MISC APPLICATION/393/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit for filing an appeal. Directed the appellant to deposit ₹6,00,000/- within four weeks to enable the appeal to proceed, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellant to deposit ₹6,00,000/- as pre-deposit within four weeks; appeal to stand dismissed in default.

Dr Jagdish Sharma versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A. No. 393/2016 (WoD)

¶2

In Appeal No. 143/2016

¶3

Between

¶4

Dr Jagdish Sharma … Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr Prashant Pandit along with Mr Jay Pandit, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

-: Order dated: 25/07/2023:-

¶7

The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 12.02.2016 dismissing M.A. No. 166/2010 in S.A. No. 94/2007 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal – III, Mumbai (D.R.T) an application for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of the S.A. No. 94/2007, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2010. The Applicant is aggrieved and hence, in appeal.

¶8

The Respondent was served but none appears and hence, set ex-parte. M.A. No. 393/2016 is an application for waiver of deposit filed u/s. 18 (1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ SARFAESI Act”, for short). Since the Respondent has not appeared there is no material indicating the exact amount that is due for recovery from the Appellant on the basis of which the pre-deposit can be made.

¶9

The Appellant has in the Misc. Application filed for restoration of S.A. before the D.R.T stated that the security measures were taken

¶10

¶11

for recovery of ₹ 10,54,916/- together with interest due from 22.11.2006 from the Appellant.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant, therefore, prays that he may be permitted to make a pre-deposit on the basis of the said amount.

¶13

The Appellant has not produced any document to prove financial strain. Hence, no indulgence can be granted by reducing the amount to a minimum of 25%. The Appellant is therefore directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- as pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. The amount shall be deposited within four weeks, i.e. on or before 22.08.2023. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶14

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶15

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

¶16

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondent is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶17

Post on 23.08.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶18

rm-9

¶19

Dr Jagdish Sharma v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Jagdish Sharma v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited versus Vivaswan Industries and Ors.

Indian Bank versus Ross Murarka ( India ) Private Limited & Ors.

Shree Tuljabhavani Sugar Private Ltd. versus Vaishnavi Sugar India Ltd. and Ors.

Dinesh S Deshmukh and Anr. versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Nagamma Yallappa Dhotre and Others versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Pragnesh Shankarlal Patel versus Bank of Baroda