Disposed

Mr. Vijay Vasant Prasade, Also in capacity of Proprietor of M/s. Prasade Constructions, v. India Infoline Home Finance Limited, Through its Authorised officer, (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956).

DRAT22 Apr 2024IA/269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai granted the appellants a two-week extension to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs as the second pre-deposit installment for their appeal, considering their hospitalization.

What did the court decide?

Extension of two weeks granted to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs; matter adjourned for reporting compliance.

Mr. Vijay Vasant Prasade, Also in capacity of Proprietor of… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 269/2024 (EoT) In Appeal on Diary No. 64/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

Vijay Vasant Prasade, also in the capacity of Proprietor of M/s Prasade Constructions & Anr. V/s.

¶5

India Infoline Home Finance Ltd. through its Authorised Officer

¶6

… Appellant/s

¶7

…Respondent/s

¶8

Milind G. Sakpal, Advocate for the Appellants. Mrs Uma S Fadia, Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

-:Order dated: 22/04/2024:-

¶10

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶11

Vide order dated 07.03.2024, the Appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹60 lakhs as pre-deposit for the appeal to be entertained. On the date of the order, they deposited ₹10 lakhs and the balance of ₹50 lakhs was directed to be deposited in two instalments within a gap of three weeks each. The first instalment of ₹25 lakhs was due on or before 02.04.2024 and was deposited in time.

¶12

The second instalment of ₹25 lakhs is due for payment today. The Appellants filed an application seeking an extension of time stating that the first Appellant is in hospital undergoing treatment for sunstroke and therefore, they could not arrange for the payment of

¶13

¶14

the balance amount. An extension of four weeks is sought.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent has vehemently opposed the application stating that the Appellants were granted six weeks altogether to pay a sum of ₹50 lakhs and therefore, further extension may not be given.

¶16

Considering the entire facts and circumstances and also because the Appellants have already deposited ₹25 lakhs towards the predeposit amount, they are granted two weeks i.e. time till 06.05.2024 to pay ₹25 lakhs, failing which there will be no further extension.

¶17

For reporting compliance regarding payment of ₹25 lakhs, adjourned to 07.05.2024.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

mks-06

¶20

Mr. Vijay Vasant Prasade, Also in capacity of Proprietor of M/s. Prasade Constructions, v. India Infoline Home Finance Limited, Through its Authorised officer, (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956).

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vijay Vasant Prasade, Also in capacity of Proprietor of M/s. Prasade Constructions, v. India Infoline Home Finance Limited, Through its Authorised officer, (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956).

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus M/S. Akspa Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Ms Kamala Mills Ltd. versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Mr Joseph Alfonso Fernandes and Anr. versus Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited

Mennem Aviation and Hospitality Limited versus karvy Finance Service Ltd.

Shreeji Metals Partnership versus State Bank of India

M/s. Amir Traders versus Bank of Baroda