Partly allowed

M/s. Amir Traders v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT12 Jul 2023REGULAR APPEAL/60/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interlocutory application challenging a pre-deposit order of 50%, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the admitted amount of Rs. 99,081.34 within one week. The appeal against the underlying dispute was to be entertained upon compliance with the Deposits Recovery Tribunal Act's pre-deposit requirement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit 50% of Rs. 99,081.34 as pre-deposit; appeal to be entertained only upon payment; else appeal to stand dismissed.

M/s. Amir Traders versus Bank of Baroda — DRAT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 289/2023(WoD) In

¶2

Appeal on Diary No. 698/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s Amir Traders & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda &Anr. …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr. Rishabh Shah, along with, Mr. Harjot Singh, i/b M/s. RavalShah& Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

Mr Vishal Raman along with Mr Anuj Jhaveri and Mr Mihir Modi, i/b PSL Advocates & Solicitors, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶9

-: Order dated: 12/07/2023:-

¶10

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal–II, Ahmadabad (D.R.T) dated 13.04.2023 dismissing the Securitisation Application(S.A.) No. 525/2019. The Appellants will have to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit for the appeal to be entertained as stipulated under Sec.18 (1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short).

¶11

The Appellants are challenging the entire proceedings starting from the issuance of the demand notice u/s. 13 (2). The subsequent Sarfaesi procedure u/s. 13 (4), the taking over the physical possession u/s. 14 and also the sale which has been confirmed on 24.01.2022 stand challenged. The amount of debt due from the

¶12

¶13

Appellants as of date inclusive of interest would be the threshold amount for the determination of the pre-deposit amount to be made. 3. The Respondent Bank has filed a reply to this application wherein, apart from the account statement there is an excess payment lying with the bank which has not been specified as to what exactly is the amount that is due from the Appellant. In this application, the Appellants have submitted that they may be permitted to deposit 25% of the ₹ 99,081.34/- which is the amount that is shown as due on the date of sale. As borne out from the account statement of the bank which has been placed, it indicates that the Appellants have, even consequent to the sale, made payments. If that be so, the amount due from the Appellants would come to a lot. Nevertheless, the Appellant has volunteered to pay the 25% of the amount which is determined by them as due and the only option left out to this Tribunal is to direct them to pay the amount based on admissions made in the application.

¶14

On perusal of the entire application, I do not find there is any pleading regarding the impecunious situation of the Appellant. The Appellants are directed to deposit 50% of the ₹ 99,081.34/- as predeposit for entertaining the appeal. The amount shall be paid within one week i.e. on or before 19.07.2023. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶15

Interim order of stay granted shall continue till the next date of hearing.

¶16

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶17

¶18

As and when the said amount is deposited, it shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

¶19

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondent is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶20

Post on 20.07.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

rm-5

¶23

M/s. Amir Traders v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Amir Traders v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avadh Corporation versus Federal Bank

Mrs Uma Venkatesh Deshpande versus Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Limited

Mr. Venkatesh Deshpande & 2 Ors. versus Nkgsb Co-op Bank Ltd. & Anr.

M/s. Amir Traders versus Bank of Baroda

Dashmesh Airconditioning Engineers Pvt. Ltd. versus Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprise Ltd.

M/S Abhinav Furniture versus Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd.