1. M/S. Vaijanath Industries Private Limited, 2. Deepak Prashram Birje, 3. Jeevan Prashram Birje v. Union Bank of India

DRAT17 Apr 2023REGULAR APPEAL/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, in an application for waiver of statutory deposit for entertaining an appeal against a final order, relied on a Supreme Court decision to direct a 50% deposit of the Section 13(2) claim amount. Despite arguments regarding prior sale and fraud, the Court fixed the deposit at Rs. 1,97,29,181/- to be paid within two weeks. The deposit already made to the High Cou

What the court decided

AI extract

1. M/S. Vaijanath Industries Private Limited, 2. Deepak… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

IA 354/2022 in A.IR:274/2022

¶3

Deepak Prashram Birje & Anr V/S A.O.,Union Bank Of India & Ors

¶4

17/04/2023

¶5

This application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act.

¶6

Advocate for appellants submitted that amount deposited in Dharwad Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka is transferred to this Tribunal and that would represent 25% of amount demanded in Section 13(2) Notice and considering the same, appeal may be entertained. He further submitted that from stage I, fraud has been committed in the measures taken under SARFAESI Act and considering the same also, statutory deposit may be reduced to 25%. Ld. Counsel further submitted that property has already been sold and money is realized, therefore, considering that aspect also, statutory deposit may be reduced to 25%.

¶7

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for first respondent bank submitted that as per latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in re, Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Vs. Prudent Arc Limited, reported in in AIR 2023 S.C.15, it is held that w hen sale is challenged, amount realized through sale cannot be taken into account for the purpose of statutory deposit for entertaining the appeal and it is necessary to deposit 50% . He further submitted that as per said judgment, even the amount indicated in Sale Certificate and interest has also to be taken into consideration while fixing amount for statutory deposit.

¶8

Considering submissions of both sides and without going into merits and demerits of the case, as this appeal is against final order, I am of the view that directing petitioners/appellants to deposit 50% of 13(2) notice amount would meet requirement of Section 18 of SARFAESI Act. Admittedly, amount claimed in Section 13(2) notice is Rs.,3,94,58,361/- as on 1.9.2020 and 50% of the same comes to Rs.1,97,29,180.50p.

¶9

Therefore, appellant shall deposit Rs.1,97,29,180.50p, rounded off to Rs.1,97,29,181/- within two weeks from today i.e., on or before 1.5.2023, failing which appeal stands rejected.

¶10

If money is received from Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench), Registry must take that amount into consideration and only remaining amount has to be taken as deposit.

¶11

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.

¶12

Post the matter on 2.5.2023 for compliance of deposit.

¶13

Sd/Chairperson

1. M/S. Vaijanath Industries Private Limited, 2. Deepak Prashram Birje, 3. Jeevan Prashram Birje v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

1. M/S. Vaijanath Industries Private Limited, 2. Deepak Prashram Birje, 3. Jeevan Prashram Birje v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M S Jai Sathya Pharma Distributors versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Sri E U Poonacha versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Forte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus South Indian Bank

Syed Abbas versus Uco Bank

Elangovan M versus Messers Fullerton India Home Finance Company Ltd.

R Saranya versus State Bank of India