Dismissed

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT15 Jan 2024IA/28/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications seeking further extensions of time to pay the balance pre-deposit. Relying on a prior order limiting extensions and noting the delay, the Tribunal refused the request, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and related miscellaneous applications as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time to pay the balance pre-deposit was refused; appeal and miscellaneous applications were dismissed.

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — DRAT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 28/2024 (Extension of Time)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 1876/2023 Between

¶3

M/s. India Steel Works Ltd. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. Rishabh Shah, along with Ragini Singh, Sanjan Salvi and Ms. Pooja Pandey, i/b M/s. Ragini Singh and Associates, Advocate for the Appellant is present.

¶6

Mr. Rohit Gupta, along with Mr. Nikhil R and Ms. Shobha Chavan, i/b M/s. V.Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1 appeared through Video Conferencing.

¶7

-: Order dated: 15/01/2024:-

¶8

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

¶9

The Appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 5 crores as pre-deposit by this Tribunal vide order dated 08.11.2023 and the Appellants paid ₹ 25,00,000/- as initial deposit and the balance was directed to be paid in instalments of ₹ 2.5 crores and ₹ 2.25 crores respectively on 29.11.2023 and 20.12.2023.

¶10

The Appellants sought an extension of time by filing I.A. No. 801/2023 vide order dated 11.12.2023 one extension was granted. Thereafter, there was another extension granted on 01.01.2024 to the Appellants to pay the entire balance of ₹ 2.75 crores on or before 15.01.2024 and it was also made clear that there would be no further

¶11

¶12

extension granted and the appeal would stand dismissed in case the amount is not paid on 15.01.2024.

¶13

The Appellants have filed this application again for extension seeking three weeks to pay ₹ 75,00,000/- and seek further extension of three weeks each for paying the balance. This Tribunal has been indulgent enough to grant extension twice, and while granting the last extension on 01.01.2024, it was made clear that no further extension would be granted.

¶14

The Appellants have deposited a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- on 05.01.2024 and seek time to pay the balance of ₹ 2.25 Crores in instalments with a gap of three weeks each. The Appellants have been granted sufficient time to pay the balance. The granting of further extension would not be unjust to the creditors who have been waiting for recovery of the amount for too long and there is also a large amount to be recovered.

¶15

Hence, an extension cannot be granted and the application is dismissed, as a result, the appeal also stands dismissed.

¶16

Misc. Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.

¶17

rm-27

¶18

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S India Steel Works Limited and Ors. v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

Risshi Rajesh Kapoor versus Bank of Maharashtra

Rajendra Mannalal Khandelwal versus Idbi Bank

M/S Primus Realtors Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India & Anr.

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Private Limited versus Pandurang Solanke

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Private Limited versus Pandurang Solanke

Sandip Narendrakumar Patel versus Axis Bank