Allowed

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRAT13 Sept 2023REGULAR APPEAL/12/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that the statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act must be computed by deducting payments made after the second Demand Notice from the total claimed amount. The Court directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the remaining balance within two weeks or face rejection of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directing the appellants to deposit Rs. 4,84,05,803/- (50% of Rs. 9,68,11,605/-) within two weeks on or before 27.09.2023 to enable the appeal to be entertained.

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Overseas Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

IA 61/2023 in A.IR:416/2022

¶3

M/S Amr Pharma India Pvt Ltd &Ors V/S A.O.,Indian Overseas Bank

¶4

13/09/2023

¶5

This Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶6

Heard both sides.

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that there are two Demand Notices; first Notice is dated 09.10.2017, through which, a sum of Rs.13,92,58,772.56p is demanded, and subsequent to that, Petitioners/Appellants paid a sum of Rs.1,26,10,000/-. He submitted, thereafter, second Demand Notice dated 02.05.2018 is issued for Rs.14,83,00,007.56p, subsequent to which, a sum of Rs.5,14,88,403/-, is paid on different dates. He submitted, due to financial constraint, remaining amount could not be paid as the factory is not running, considering these aspects, statutory deposit may be reduced.

¶8

On the other hand, Advocate for Respondent Bank opposed and submitted that, the payment of Rs.5,14,88,403/- is not disputed, and said amount is paid on different dates subsequent to second Demand Notice dated 02.05.2018. He submitted, the amount indicated in the second Demand Notice has to be taken into consideration.

¶9

I have perused material papers and impugned Order dated 06.09.2022.

¶10

The Appeal is against final Order. Admittedly, the amount claimed in Demand Notice dated 02.05.2018 is Rs. Rs.14,83,00,007.56p. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs.5,14,88,403/- is paid after issuance of Demand Notice dated 02.05.2018. As per Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal, Borrower shall deposit 50% of amount of debt due from him as claimed by Secured Creditor or determine by DRT. Admittedly, there is no determination of debt by DRT, therefore, debt claimed by Secured Creditor has to be taken into consideration. For that, Demand Notice is the document which speaks about debt due from Borrower to Bank.

¶11

The amount indicated in second Demand Notice dated 02.05.2018 is Rs.14,83,00,007.56p (rounded off to Rs.14,83,00,008/-), out of this, the amount paid subsequent to said Notice i.e. Rs.5,14,88,403/-, has to be deducted from out of said Notice amount, to determine the debt due from Borrower, as claimed by Secured Creditor. If that is done(Rs.14,83,00,008/-minus Rs.5,14,88,403/-), the amount would come down to Rs.9,68,11,605/-, and Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit 50% of Rs.9,68,11,605/-, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶12

For the above reasons, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit 50% of Rs.9,68,11,605/-, which comes to Rs.4,84,05,802.50p (Rounded off to Rs.4,84,05,803/-), within a period of two weeks from today i.e., on or before 27.09.2023.

¶13

It is made clear that failure to deposit of above amount, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time till further orders are passed.

¶14

Post the case on 29.09.2023, for compliance of payment.

¶15

Sd/Chairperson

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amr Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Overseas 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

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Moses versus State Bank of India

Ms Vimalkumar Textiles versus Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank)

Ms Ipac Paper Boards India Private Limited Rep by its Director Vikram Balaraman versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Sai Ganapath Hotel Pvt. Ltd.

N Pon Nixson versus Indian Over Seas Bank

Stata Bank Of India versus Ms Peekay mediquip Ltd.