Disposed

Mr Tanishi Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT9 Aug 2024IA/545/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an I.A. for an extension of time to pay dues and deferment of possession scheduled for 12th inst, the Tribunal fixed a pre-deposit of Rs 50 lakhs pending before a higher court. The Bank opposed the extension, intending physical possession. The Tribunal deferred possession pending pre-deposit in 13 months. The Bank opposed the extension, intending physical possession. The Tribunal deferred posse

What did the court decide?

Calling the taking over of possession scheduled for 12th deferred till next date upon compliance with pre-deposit requirement for Rs. 50 lakhs in two instalments.

Mr Tanishi Life Science Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 545/2024(WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.1698/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s Tanishi Life Science Ltd. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

The Authorised Officer, Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Appellants. Mr Sachin Kaikini i/b M/s SP Law PCPL, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶8

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

¶9

The appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 25.07.2024 in Misc. Application (M.A.) No. 38 of 2024 seeking an extension of time to pay the amount undertaken to be paid in S.A. No. 492 of 2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.). The extension was declined. Aggrieved by that, the appellants are in appeal. It is submitted that the appellants are earnestly attempting to sell the property with the consent of the bank so that the entire debt can be repaid. As of 08.04.2024, the outstanding dues are ₹1,27,32,529.27. 2. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank vehemently opposes the application stating that the bank is not willing to grant any extension of time to the appellants to settle the dues and that they

¶10

¶11

intend to take physical possession of the secured asset on the 12^th instant.

¶12

The appellant will have to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sec. 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short) for the appeal to be entertained. Taking the amount outstanding due as referred to in the impugned order, and also keeping in mind that the appellants have already paid ₹30 lakhs against the aforesaid outstanding dues, the appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹50 lakhs as pre-deposit. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that ₹15 lakhs is being paid by RTGS before 5 pm today.

¶13

Subject to the amount being received by way of RTGS with intimation to the Registrar and the Ld. Counsel appearing for the bank, the taking over of possession scheduled on the 12^th instant shall be deferred till the next date of hearing.

¶14

The balance amount shall be paid in two equal instalments within a gap of three and two weeks respectively as detailed hereunder:

¶15

Number of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment of₹17,50,000/-	30.08.2024
2^ndInstalment of₹17,50,000/-	13.09.2024

¶16

Failure to pay the instalment/amount within the time stipulated would entail in dismissal of the appeal without any reference to this Tribunal.

¶17

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft/RTGS with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Payment by RTGS

¶18

¶19

shall be communicated to the Registry for verification.

¶20

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

¶21

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The respondent is at liberty to file a reply in this appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶22

Post on 02.09.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the first instalment.

¶23

Sd/Chairperson

¶24

mks-30

¶25

Mr Tanishi Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Tanishi Life Science Pvt. Ltd. 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

Subhash Jaysingh Pawar versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Ashish Ramesh Hirurkar versus The Authorised Officer Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Adison Granito Private Limited versus Bank of Baroda

Central Bank of India versus Upendra Pravinbhai Patel and Anr.

Mohammad Moinuddin Khan and Anr. versus PNB Housing Finance Limited and Others

Merchant Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. versus Smfg India Credit Company Ltd.