Mr Kurmala Satyanarayana v. Andhra Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Tribunal considered an application for waiver/reduction of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, it held that the 50% deposit is mandatory but allowed a reduction. The Appellant was directed to deposit 40% of the debt due as pre-requisite to file a regular appeal.
What did the court decide?
An amount equivalent to 40% of the debt due (Rs. 2.95 crore) was ordered to be deposited by the Appellant within six weeks as pre-deposit to admit the appeal.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
(Diary No.184 of 2021)
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
CHAIRPERSON
20.02.2023 Kurmala Satyanarayana … Appellant -VsA.O. Union Bank of India ….Respondents Mr. N. Srinivas, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant Ms. J. Chowdhury, Learned Counsel, Ms. Ranjana Seal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Mr. A.K. Dhandhania, Ld. Senior Counsel, for the Respondent No. 6. Mr. S. Pal Chowdhury, Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. No. 147 of 2021 an application for waiver from making pre deposit filed by the Appellant on the ground that the secured assets are sold in auction.
In the recent case of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022 M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited & Anr Vs. Prudent ARC Limited & Ors delivered on 5th January, 2023 it has specifically been observed and held in paragraph 13 of the judgement that :
“13. As per Section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act, “debt” shall have the same meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act 1993. As per section 2(g) of the Act
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellant can claim waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act on grounds of financial hardship and sale of secured assets.
Whether the DRAT can reduce the mandatory 50% pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to a lower percentage in the circumstances of the case.
The quantum of pre-deposit required from the Appellant to admit the appeal against the DRT order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kurmala Satyanarayana
- respondent
Union Bank of India
Coram
Anil Kumar Srivastava
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
8 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court