Dismissed

Mstc Limited v. Standard Chartered Bank

DRAT10 Jan 2023MISC APPLICATION/56/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal for refund of pre-deposit, directing the transmission of the amount to the Recovery Officer. The Tribunal held that without a stay on the Recovery Officer's attachment order or an order from the High Court protecting the pre-deposit, it was not in the interest of justice to defer the order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the pre-deposit amount to be forwarded to the Recovery Officer and dismissing the appeal for refund.

Mstc Limited versus Standard Chartered Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A. No. 56/2022 (Refund of Money)

¶2

¶3

(Appeal on Diary No. 146/2021- Disposed of)

Between

MSTC Ltd.

… Appellant/s

V/s.

Standard Chartered Bank …Respondent/s

¶9

Mr Gaurav Joshi, Senior Counsel along with Mr Rajesh Nagory and Ms Nasrin Shaikh, i/b M/s. Indus Law, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Tushad Cooper, Senior Counsel along with Mr Taha Mirza and Ms Drishti Doshi, i/b M/s. Khaitan & Co., Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶10

-: Order dated: 10/01/2023:-

¶11

This is in continuation of the order dated 05.12.2021 wherein

¶12

the prayer for a refund of pre-deposit was kept in abeyance awaiting the outcome of interim orders likely to be passed in Writ Petition (L) No. 34860/ 2022 on the files of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Respondent Bank had already got a favourable order of attachment of the pre-deposit amount in Recovery Proceedings No. 214/2017 from the Recovery Officer, D.R.T.-I exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 28 (4) of the RDB Act. The order of attachment has been communicated for necessary action to the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶13

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for

¶14

¶15

the Appellant/ Applicant that an application has been filed as I.A. (L) No. 36379 of 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court, this Tribunal thought it appropriate to await the outcome of the interim order, if any, that may be passed in the aforesaid Writ.

¶16

It is now submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties that the arguments in the Writ have concluded and the Petition is taken for orders. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that the Applicant did not press for an interim order in the Writ and therefore, there is no reason why this application should be kept pending. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that in view of the fact that the Hon’ble High Court has taken the Writ Petition for orders, it is appropriate that this Tribunal directs the status quo to be maintained till a decision is taken in the Writ Petition.

¶17

I had already made it clear in my earlier order dated 05.12.2022 that the order of the Ld. Recovery Officer cannot be interfered with, even if erroneous, as long as it is not interfered with by the D.R.T. There is no stay obtained to the order of the Ld. R.O. so far. The Hon’ble High Court has also not made any orders protecting the pre-deposit amount from attachment. Under the circumstances, it may not be in the interest of justice to refrain from passing an order in the application, indefinitely. The pre-deposit

¶18

¶19

amount shall, therefore, be forwarded to the Recovery Officer in the Recovery Proceedings pending before him. This application for a refund of pre-deposit cannot be entertained and is, therefore, dismissed.

¶20

M.A. No. 57/2022 filed by Respondent Bank is also dismissed as infructuous.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

mks-2

¶23

Mstc Limited v. Standard Chartered Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mstc Limited v. Standard Chartered Bank

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

Smt. Geetaben Nareshbhai Shah versus Mashreq Bank Limited & Ors.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/S Kankairya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Radhee Foods Pvt. Ltd.

The Memon Co-op. Bank Ltd. versus Allahabad Bank

Manojkumar Sureshchand Lunkad and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited and Anr. versus Veer Gurjar Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd.