Disposed

Hareshwar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bank of India and Anr.

DRAT10 Aug 2023MISC APPLICATION/49/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal directed the Appellants to deposit a calculated shortfall of 25% of the debt within two weeks. The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent Bank to produce proof of a partial receipt prior to determining the final amount.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit ₹37,42,212 within two weeks; Respondent Bank directed to produce proof of receipt of ₹14 lakhs.

Hareshwar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. versus Central Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A.No.49/2022 In

¶2

(Appeal No. 40/2019-Disposed of )

¶3

Between

¶4

Hareshwar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Central Bank of India & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Rafeeq Peermohideen along with Ms Preeti Barde, i/b Ms Ragini Rao, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Ms Tejasvi Dalvi, Advocate for Respondent

¶8

-: Order dated: 10/08/2023:-

¶9

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 25.04.2019 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) in Appeal No. 02 of 2017. The Appellants had filed an application as M.A. No. 381 of 2019 in the Appeal under Sec. 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (‘RDDB & FI Act’, for short).

¶10

This Tribunal had dismissed the application seeking a prayer to exempt them from the payment of the mandatory pre-deposit in view of the fact that the Appellants are already deposited 50% of the debt due while filing Appeal No. 02 of 2017 before the D.R.T. under Sec. 30-A of the RDDB & FI Act vide order dated 29.05.2019.

¶11

The order of this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4907 of 2021 and the 1

¶12

petition was allowed, quashing the order of this Tribunal and the Appellants were granted the liberty to deposit 25% of the amount due. The D.R.T. was directed to transfer the amount deposited together with accumulated interest to this Tribunal and the Appellants were directed to deposit any shortfall out of 25% to be deposited. On doing so the appeal would be revived.

¶13

The Appellants thus filed the aforesaid M.A. No. 49 of 2022 seeking a direction to reveal the shortfall to be deposited by them under Sec. 21.

¶14

The Respondent Bank has filed a reply stating that the amount as of the date due from the Appellants is ₹3,53,20,575/-. From out of that the accumulated interest after the date of filing of the appeal will have to be deducted which amounts to ₹65,64,110/-. The balance would therefore be ₹2,87,56,465/-. 25% of that amount would come to ₹71,89,116/-. There is an amount of ₹14 lakhs received by the Respondent Bank and the Respondent Bank is willing to deduct that as well, apart from ₹20,46,904/- transferred from the D.R.T. According to the Respondent, the amount to be deposited by the Appellants would, therefore, be ₹37,42,212/-.

¶15

The amount of ₹14 lakhs is not produced before this Tribunal. The Respondent Bank is, therefore, directed to produce the said amount before this Tribunal. The Appellants are, as per the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, directed to deposit the aforesaid shortfall of ₹37,42,212/- within two weeks i.e. 24.08.2023.

¶16

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft

¶17

¶18

with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶19

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.

¶20

With these observations, the M.A. is disposed of.

¶21

For reporting compliance, adjourned to 25.08.2023.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

mks-1

¶24

Hareshwar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareshwar Packaging Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Central Bank of India and Anr.

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

Mr Baburao Tukaram Navsare versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Sandeep Umakant Thadeshwar versus Iifl Home Finance Limited

Asteroid Shelter Homes Pvt. Ltd. versus Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd.

Prahladbhai G Raval versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Sultan Mohammad Shaikh versus Dcb Bank Limited

Reliable Polyesters Private Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda