Dismissed

M/s B J Grain and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT14 May 2024IA/353/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application for modification of a pre-deposit order as it was in reality a time-barred review application. It held the debt amount included interest per Supreme Court precedent and directed the appellant to deposit the requisite sum to avoid appeal dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Application for modification dismissed. Appellant directed to deposit ₹2.5 Crores within three weeks on pain of appeal dismissal.

M/s B J Grain and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 353/2024 (Modification)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 150/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. B.J. Grain & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Rajesh Nagory, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Sachin Fuladi, Advocate for Respondent appeared through a Video Conference.

¶8

This is an application filed by the Appellants for modification of the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 03.02.2023 in Interim Application (I.A.) No. 70/2023 for waiver of pre-deposit.

¶9

After hearing both sides on the application for waiver of deposit, this Tribunal had concluded that the threshold amount for payment of pre-deposit is a sum of ₹5,90,71,645/- and the Appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹2.5 Crores as pre-deposit in two equal instalments. The Appellants sought an extension of time to pay the first instalment, and they were granted two weeks extension by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.02.2023. Thereafter, they filed this application for modification which, for all practical purposes is an application for review. Since, it is pointed out that there is a mistake in calculating the threshold amount because the sale notice indicates

¶10

¶11

that the amount dues on the date of sale notice was only a sum of ₹3,41,29,385/- and therefore, that amount should have been taken as a threshold amount for payment of the pre-deposit. It is prayed that the order may be modified and the pre-deposit amount may be determined based on the threshold amount a sum of ₹3,41,29,385/-. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent has vehemently opposed this application stating that the aforesaid amount mentioned in the sale notice also specifically states that the interest and other charges are to be added to that and after adding the interest and and expenses, after appropriating a sum of ₹80 lakhs which has been subsequently paid by the Appellants, the amount as on date of filing of the appeal would be ₹5,90,71,645/- and therefore, there is no error on the face of the record to review or modified the order.

¶12

Heard both sides, it has to be observed at the outset that even though the nomenclature of the application is that it is a modification application, for all practical purposes, it is a review application provided under Rule 6-A of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules. Since it has to be considered as a review application, it has to be filed within 30 days as stipulated under sub-rule (20 of rule 6-A, and this application was filed only on 14.03.2023 which is beyond the period of 30 days, and therefore, it is not possible to condone the delay in filing this application for review. 5. Secondly, it has to be observed that the amount stated in the order is based on the amount that was due on the date of the filing of the appeal which would include the interest and other charges also. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sidha

¶13

¶14

Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ano. vs. Prudent ARC Ltd & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12 , when the Sarfaesi action is challenged consequent to the sale taking placed and the sale is also challenged. The amount of debt dues is amount inclusive of interest and therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The application for modification/review, is, therefore, dismissed.

¶15

Because of the filing of this application for review the predeposit amount directed to be paid was not deposited on time and the appeal also was not dismissed in consequence of the non-deposit of the amount and an extension of two weeks was already granted to the Appellants to deposit the amount. Hence, in all fairness and interest of justice, I direct the Appellants to deposit the aforesaid pre-deposit a sum of ₹2.5 Crores within three weeks from today and no further extension will be granted. Non-payment would entail in dismissal of the appeal.

¶16

List on 05.06.2024 for reporting compliance of deposit.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

psa-26

¶19

M/s B J Grain and Ors. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s B J Grain and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apex India Company and Another versus Indian Bank

Vinodkumar Ramgopalji Gilada versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Ms Aditi Re Rolling Mills Limited versus State Bank of India

Shobha Dheeraj Lad versus Punjab National Bank

Artiston Apparels Pvt. Ltd. versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Abhijeet Powgen Limited and Ors. versus Uco Bank