Sunil kr. Arora and Anr. v. Bank of Baroda and 2 Ors.

Appeal Dy. No. 283/2023 Date: 23.05.2023

Sunil Kumar Arora Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Present: Shri Udai Chandani, counsel for the appellant, Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri Sanjay Singh, respondent no. 3-Auction Purchaser in person,

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by the Tribunal below in O.A. No. 163/2020, which pertains to the over draft facility of Rs. 45.00 lacs and the second O.A., which was numbered as 162/2020, pertains to the cash credit facility of Rs. 1.26 crores. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that since in the said O.A., the total amount in question was Rs. 45.00 lacs, therefore, the appellant has deposited Rs. 11.50 lacs, which is 25% of the said amount, therefore, there is no concealment on the part of the appellant as alleged by the respondent-bank and the auction purchaser on the last date and to authenticate the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the relief clause of the present appeal and has contended that the prayer has been made only with regard to the O.A. No. 163/2020 and not for O.A. No. 162/2020. It is also contended that against the order passed in O.A. No. 162/2020, he has already prepared the appeal, which is likely to be filed within a span of 2-3 days, but the demand draft of Rs. 30.00 lacs has already been made by the appellant towards pre-deposit. It is, therefore, prayed that the interim order granted earlier may be extended.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that 25% amount has been deposited towards pre-deposit, then also the appellant is required to make it 50% of the amount due for maintaining the appeal.