Dismissed

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

DRAT3 Jul 2023REGULAR APPEAL/59/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an IA under an appeal, the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal examined whether deposits made before a DRT tribunal for interim relief counted towards the mandatory deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Finding a shortfall in the required amount, the Tribunal rejected the appeal for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Appeal A.IR (SA): 274/2022 rejected for non-compliance of Conditional Order dated 17.04.2023.

1. M/S. Vaijanath Industries Private Limited, 2. Deepak… — Banking and Recovery | 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

03/07/2023

¶5

This Waiver Application is ordered on 17.04.2023 directing Petitioners/Appellants to deposit Rs.1,97,29,181/- on or before 01.05.2023 and failure to deposit, results in rejection of Appeal.

¶6

Challenging the same, Petitioners/Appellants herein approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench in WP No. 102663/2023. In view of Interim Orders, without giving effect to conditional Order, matter is kept pending. Now from the submissions of both sides, main Writ is disposed of on 05.06.2023, copy of Order is produced.

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants submitted with regard to Demand Draft dated 31.05.2023 for Rs.10 Lakhs, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, passed an Order on 26.06.2023. This Tribunal has to accept said Demand Draft of Rs.10 Lakhs, and if this is done, total amount of Rs.1,97,29,181/- is deposited, thereby Order dated 17.04.2023 is complied with.

¶8

On the other hand, Learned Advocate for 1^st Respondent Bank submitted that total amount of Rs.1,97,29,181/- is not deposited, and still there is balance.

¶9

Registry verified the deposits and put up a note; according to Registry, Rs.1,20,06,490/- in total is deposited with this Tribunal. The amount received from Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by way of transferred Demand Draft dated 06.04.2023 is Rs.1,02,76,490/-; amount deposited by Petitioners/Appellants through Demand Draft dated 15.05.2023 is Rs.7,30,000/- and amount deposited through Demand Draft dated 31.05.2023 is Rs.10 Lakhs, and thus, total comes to Rs.1,20,06,490/-.

¶10

Advocate for Petitioners/Appellants filed a Memo showing calculation, which includes a sum of Rs.87,11,521/- deposited with Respondent Bank pursuant to Interim Orders of DRT-II, Bengaluru. But, Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, contemplates, deposit before DRAT for entertaining the Appeal. Therefore, amounts paid to Bank for obtaining certain Interim Orders, do not fall under the category of deposit to satisfy Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶11

Hon’ble High Court, in its Order dated 05.06.2023, recorded submissions of Advocate appearing for Petitioners/Appellants herein, and observed if DRAT satisfied with regard to deposit of Rs.1,97,29,181/-, DRAT shall hear the Appeal on merits. What is observed by Hon’ble High Court is prima facie has shown by Petitioners/Appellants that they have made deposits before DRAT. It is also

¶12

observed, if DRAT comes to the conclusion that the Petitioners/Appellants have deposited entire amount as ordered through Order dated 17.04.2023, it shall hear the Appeal on merits and dispose of it in accordance with law, notwithstanding the fact that the deposit is made beyond the time fixed by this Tribunal. But, the claim made by Petitioners/Appellants in respect of deposit made to Respondent Bank as per directions of DRT-II, Bengaluru, for the purpose of Interim Orders, do not fall, with deposit indicated in Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Therefore, as rightly calculated by Office, there is a shortfall of Rs.77,22,691/-. Since Petitioners/ Appellants have not complied with Order dated 17.04.2023, by depositing Rs.1,97,29,181/-, the Appeal has to be rejected giving effect to the Order dated 17.04.2023.

¶13

Accordingly Appeal A.IR (SA): 274/2022 is rejected for non compliance of Conditional Order dated 17.04,2023 namely deposit required under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. All pending IAs, if any stand closed.

¶14

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 did the court decide?

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 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

T.Murugian & Anr. versus Canara Bank & Ors.

Messrs Sri Murugan Oil Mills versus District Collector

Sureshkumar M versus State Bank of India

The National Co. Operative Bank Ltd. versus Dr Uma Suresh Wo Late Mr Suresh

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

Sri Vinayaga Bankers versus City Union Bank Limited