Allowed

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT8 May 2024IA/300/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-payment of pre-deposit and condonation of 20-day delay. The Tribunal allowed the application subject to deposit of remaining ₹7 lakhs, ₹20,000 cost, and compliance on May 16, 2024.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay and restoration allowed subject to deposit of ₹7 lakhs and payment of ₹20,000 cost within one week.

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 300/2024(CoD)

¶3

¶4

M.A. on Diary No. 849/2024(Restoration)

¶5

¶6

(Appeal on Diary No. 1328/2022-Disposed of)

¶7

Between

¶8

Stone Yuug Corporation & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶9

V/s.

¶10

Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s

¶11

Mr Radhe Agarwal, i/b M/s Radlaw Associates, Advocate for Appellants.

¶12

Mr S. N. Fuladi, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶13

-: Order dated: 08/05/2024:-

¶14

The Appellants have filed this application for restoration of the appeal that was dismissed on 29.02.2024 for non-compliance with the order of this Tribunal to make a pre-deposit.

¶15

The Appellants were directed to make a total deposit of ₹30 lakhs under Sec. 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) for entertaining this appeal and they paid a substantial amount. There was a balance of ₹12 lakhs more to be paid which was not paid within time despite being granted an extension of two weeks as a result of which, the appeal was dismissed. 3. The Appellants have now filed an application for restoration and there is a delay of 20 days in filing this restoration application and seek to condone. It is submitted that Appellant No. 2 was hospitalized and therefore, was not in a position to arrange the funds to deposit.

¶16

¶17

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has vehemently opposed this application by stating that the Appellants have been protracting the matter to get an extension of time. The last extension was granted vide order dated 14.02.2024 wherein it was specifically stated that no further extension would be granted. Despite that, they are now taking advantage of the appeal restoration by getting an extension of time and therefore, the application for condonation of delay and restoration application be dismissed, according to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank.

¶18

After hearing both sides, I find that the Appellants did not make the payment on time despite being granted an extension, and therefore, the application for condonation of delay of 20 days to restore the appeal cannot be allowed without imposing some costs on the Appellants. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that the balance pre-deposit of ₹12 lakhs shall be deposited by tomorrow i.e. 09.05.2024. Hence, the application for condonation of delay of 20 days as well as restoration are allowed subject to the deposit of ₹7 lakhs more towards pre-deposit and also pay inconvenience cost of ₹20,000/to the Respondent bank within a week.

¶19

On the payment of the entire amount and cost, the appeal shall stand restored and the interim order shall also stand restored.

¶20

Post on 16.05.2024 for reporting compliance regarding payment and cost.

¶21

mks-27

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

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

Similar cases

Colt Cables Private Limited and Ors. versus Sicom Limited

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

M/S. I Tech Advance Inspection Services versus Bank of India

Indian Overseas Bank versus Hemant Chhatrabhuj Shah

Union Bank of India versus Ms joy steel impex

Deustche Bank versus Shekhar Ramjeet Singh