Disposed

Drishti Land and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT10 Feb 2023REGULAR APPEAL/51/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dealt with an interim application for waiver of pre-deposit by the appellant, a developer, who was neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Relying on the Calcutta High Court judgment in Satish Tiwari, the court held that such appellants are not required to make a pre-deposit.

What did the court decide?

Application for waiver of pre-deposit allowed.

Drishti Land and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda — Arbitration | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

Appeal No. 51 of 2021

¶3

(Arising out of T.S.A. 67 of 2014 in DRT-III, Kolkata)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

10.02.2023 Drishti Land & Infrastructure Private Limited … Appellant -VsBank of Baroda & 13 Others … Respondents Mrs. Arpita Saha with Ms. Sanjukta Ray and Ms. Rafat Reyaz, Learned Counsel for the Appellant

¶6

Mr. Avishek Guha with Ms. Ishita Ghosh, Learned Counsel for Respondents No. 1 and 2/Bank

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

I.A. 252 of 2022

¶9

This is an application filed by Appellant for waiver from making pre deposit.

¶10

Instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment and order dated 22^nd September, 2020 passed by the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Kolkata dismissing the SARFAESI Application filed by the Appellant.

¶11

At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant is neither borrower nor guarantor rather he is the Developer who executed a Development Agreement with the sister concern of the borrower with different percentage of share in the property. Borrower mortgaged his share in the property to the Bank. Appellant has nothing to do with such mortgage. However, Learned Counsel submits that the SARFAESI Application filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the Learned Tribunal hence the instant appeal is filed with an application for waiver.

¶12

¶13

It is admitted that the Appellant is neither borrower nor guarantor, as has also been admitted by the Respondents. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in C.O. 2070 of 2014 in the matter of Satish Tiwari -vs- The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India reported in (2014) 4 Cal LT 460 wherein it was held that :

¶14

“ The second proviso to the relevant Section covers only the borrowers of the secured creditors and, by definition, the guarantors who have promised re-payment of the debt due from the principal debtor. Other classes of persons who prefer appeals have deliberately not been required to make the pre-deposit and it would be presumptuous to conclude that a person aggrieved within the meaning of the opening three words of Section 18 of the Act of 2002 would only be a borrower within the definition of the Act.”

¶15

“The bank does not xx x x x. The only distinction that the statute makes is between borrowers and other classes of appellants. Borrowers, including guarantors, are required to make the pre-deposit; the other classes of appellants are not required to do so.”

¶16

In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid case, since Appellant is neither borrower or guarantor, application for waiver is allowed.

¶17

Respondents No. 1 and 2, represented through Learned Counsel, Mr. Avishek Guha, may file opposition within four weeks with advance copy to the Appellant. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶18

List on 25^th April, 2023 for hearing of appeal.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶20

Dated: 10^th February, 2023 12/ac

Drishti Land and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Drishti Land and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

P.S.Krishna Mohan versus Canara Bank

Sri Dharani Enterprises versus Icici Bank Limited

Smt Vakalaggada Siva Annapurana Lakshmi Prabhavathi versus Union Bank of India

Sruti Ranjan Ray versus State Bank of India

National Commodities Mangt. versus Union Bank of India

National Commodities Mangt. versus Union Bank of India