Allowed

Anand Trading Company v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT22 Aug 2024IA/584/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, granted a further two-week extension to the appellants to pay the outstanding ₹9 lakhs pre-deposit. The court noted their partial compliance despite a shortfall caused by property sale negotiations, warning of dismissal if payment is not made by the deadline.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time granted to pay the balance amount within two weeks; appeal to be disposed of if not paid.

Anand Trading Company versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 584/2024 (Extension of Time)

¶2

¶3

Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 666/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

The Authorised Officer,

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

Mr. Rishabh Shah, i/b M/s. Raval-Shah & Co., Advocate for Appellants.

¶8

An Advocate for the Respondents is present.

¶9

-: Order dated: 22/08/2024:-

¶10

Vide order dated 24.07.2024, the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹40 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. On the date of the order, a sum of ₹10 lakhs was paid by way of RTGS by the appellants. The balance a sum of ₹30 lakhs was directed to be paid in two equal instalments of ₹15 lakhs each within the gap of two weeks each.

¶11

The 1^st instalment a sum of ₹15 lakhs due on 07.08.2024 was

¶12

paid on time and the 2^nd instalment a sum of ₹15 lakhs was due and payable on 21.08.2024. Toward the 2^nd instalment, the appellants could deposit only a sum of ₹6 lakhs and there is a shortfall of a sum of ₹9 lakhs.

¶13

¶14

The appellants have filed this application for an extension of time to pay the balance amount. It is stated that the negotiations were made for selling the property and that there was some delay in getting the amount which caused a default in payment of the 2^nd instalment in time.

¶15

Notice was served on the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent. The Ld. Counsel vehemently opposes and states that after considering the entire facts and circumstances of this Tribunal pleased to grant time to pay the amount in two instalments within the gap of two weeks each. In case an extension is granted it would amount to further time being granted without any valid reason and therefore, the application be dismissed. The appeal also be dismissed for non-compliance with the order.

¶16

Going through the application and the reason mentioned there, I find that the appellants have made an earnest attempt to make the payment, and the time for extension is also sought after the appellants have paid a sum of ₹6 lakhs and therefore, I find that the appellants have to be granted a further extension of time to pay the balance amount and the balance amount shall be paid within two weeks. Failing which the appeal stands dismissed without any further reference to this Tribunal and no further extension will be granted.

¶17

List on 06.09.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the payment.

¶18

Sd/Chairperson

¶19

psa-10

¶20

Anand Trading Company v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Trading Company 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

Manish Mahendrabhai Patel versus Indian Bank

Prakash M Rajgor versus South Indian Bank

Mr Shailesh Dilipbhai Shah versus Sammaan Capital Ltd. and Ors.

Manish Uddhavrao Shivankar and Others versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Mahesh tannayan kotiyan and others versus Punjab National Bank

Mahesh tannayan kotiyan and others versus Punjab National Bank