The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application for waiver of pre-deposit, holding that Section 21 of the RDB Act is mandatory. The Tribunal ordered the appellant to deposit 35% of the debt due, provided prior deposits with interest will be adjusted.
Appellant directed to make a pre-deposit of 35% of the debt due within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA
Appl. Dy No. 13 of 2019
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
04.10.2023
M/s. NAP Leathers (P) Ltd.
M/s. Assets Reconstruction Co. (I) Ltd.
….. Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. R. K. Annavajjula, ld. advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Pratik Ghosh, ld. Advocate.
Mr. Avisekh Roy Chowdhury, ld. Advocate.
THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :
I.A. 408 of 2022 is an application for waiver from making pre-deposit filed by the appellant u/s 21 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
Instant appeal preferred against the judgement and order dated 22.11.2028 passed by the learned DRT-I Hyderabad allowing the O.A. no. 1244 of 1999 with the direction for recovery of Rs.1,47,87,045/-. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in Tender No. 172 of 2018 an amount of Rs.76,20,000/- was deposited by the appellant in the year 2019. That amount was deposited with the Registrar, DRAT, Kolkata. Now this amount should have been increased with accumulated interest to the extent of Rs.01.00 crore approximately. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that date of filing the appeal was 23.01.2019 and debt due with interest comes to Rs.5,22,98,310/-. Accordingly, appellant
2
should have to make payment 50% of the debt due as predeposit.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that secured assets are in possession of the secured creditor. Further, it is submitted that S.A. was dismissed, but review application is pending. Hence, appellant submits that amount of pre-deposit may be made 25% of the debt due.
O.A. was filed in the year 1999 whereas recovery certificate was issued on 22.11.2018. Provisions of Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 is mandatory in nature as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank [(2011) 4 SCC 548].
Accordingly, considering the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I find it appropriate that appellant should make pre-deposit 35 per cent of the debt due within a period of six weeks. Amount deposited with the DRAT, Kolkata including interest will be adjusted.
List on 19.01.2024 for further order.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated : 04.10.2023 05 /pkb
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to reduce the mandatory 50% pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 of the RDB Act for the appellant.
Whether the appellant is required to deposit 35% of the debt due within six weeks.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO BankReferred¶18
Narayan Chandra Ghosh Vs. UCO Bank [(2011) 4 SCC 548] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. NAP Leathers (P) Ltd.
M/s. Assets Reconstruction Co. (I) Ltd.
Anil Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
11 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
