Disposed

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam v. Indian Overseas Bank

DRAT5 Jun 2023REGULAR APPEAL/39/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal fixed the statutory deposit for two appeals under the SARFAESI Act at 50% of the outstanding balance after deducting post-notice payments, rejecting the request to reduce the rate to 25% due to lack of supporting material.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/Appellants ordered to deposit Rs. 9,47,25,692/- within two weeks; otherwise, both Appeals stand rejected.

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam versus Indian Overseas Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

IA 50/2023 in A.IR:461/2022

¶3

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam V/S Indian Overseas Bank

¶4

05/06/2023

¶5

These Applications [IA 50/2023 in AIR (SA) 461/2022 and IA 53/2023 in AIR (SA) 462/2022] are filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeals.

¶6

In these two Applications, the amount demanded under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, is Rs.26,44,51,383. 62p, as on 06.08.2019.

¶7

Heard both sides.

¶8

Learned Senior Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that subsequent to 13 (2) Notice, a sum of Rs.7.50 Crores is paid, and details of which are mentioned in Para 5 of Affidavits filed in support of Petitions. He further submitted, three assets are given as security, and all the three assets are sold, and Bank realized a sum of Rs.15.46 Crores. It is submitted, Petitioners/Appellants have no other source to mobilize funds, and taking the same into consideration, statutory deposit may be reduced to 25%.

¶9

Advocate for first Respondent Bank opposed and submitted that, as per Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, 50% of amount claimed by Secured Creditor have to be deposited, and no grounds are made out for reducing the statutory deposit.

¶10

I have perused material papers.

¶11

These two Appeals are filed against dismissal of Securitisation Applications; one is filed challenging Sale Notice and the other challenging Sale that has been conducted, but loan account is one and the same. Considering the same, for both

¶12

Appeals, one deposit is considered sufficient; Since these Appeals are against final Orders, and no valid grounds are made out for reducing the statutory deposit, except saying that Petitioners/Appellants have no other source, they have not produced any material supporting the same; As Petitioners/Appellants have paid Rs.7.50 Crores on various dates after issuance of 13(2) Notice, said amount have to be deducted from out of the amount demanded under Section 13(2) Notice, and on doing so, amount due after deduction of payments subsequent to 13(2) Notice, comes to Rs.18,94,51,383.62p. For entertaining the Appeal, Petitioners/Appellants have to deposit 50% of aforesaid amount, which comes to Rs.9,47,25,691.81p (rounded up to Rs. 9,47,25,692/-.

¶13

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit the said amount i.e., Rs.9,47,25,692/-, within two weeks from today, i.e. on or before 19.06.2023, failing which, both Appeals stand rejected.

¶14

On making such deposit, Registrar shall invest the same in a Nationalized Bank for a reasonable period and renew it periodically, till further orders are passed.

¶15

Post the matter on 20.06.2023, for compliance of deposit.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam v. Indian Overseas Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govindasamy Balasubramaniam 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

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M s Pkp Feed Mills Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

N Rajkumar versus Dbs Bank India Ltd.

M s Sathya Granites versus State Bank of India

Ms Green Land Marketing Agencies versus Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd.

Reji M P versus Karur Vysya Bank

Mrs.I.Kumari versus Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited