Disposed

Stone Yuug v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT10 Jan 2024IA/624/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT determined the pre-deposit threshold for the appeal based on the Supreme Court's Sidha Neelkanth guidelines and the sale notice amount. Directions were issued for the Appellants to deposit a partial sum in installments due to financial constraints, with the sale stayed pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit ₹30,00,000/- as pre-deposit in two installments by 31.01.2024 and 14.02.2024. SARFAESI measures stayed.

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 624/2022 (WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 1328/2022 Between Stone Yuug Corporation & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

Bank of Baroda …Respondent/s Mr. N.L. Karamchandani, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. S.N. Fuladi, along with U.N. Fuladi, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶5

-: Order dated: 10/01/2024:-

¶6

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 01.12.2022 dismissing two applications i.e. I.A. Nos. 1298/2022 and 1902/2022 in S.A. No. 258/2022 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T). The Appellants have challenged the Sarfaesi measures on grounds including the insufficiency of the demand notice issued u/s. 13(2) demanding a sum of ₹ 1,21,00,000/- as of 30.09.2021. It is pointed out that the bifurcation of the principal amount of interest is not shown. It is also pointed out by the Appellants that the calculation of the amount is not correct because the interest is at a floating rate and the details of the interest that has been applied have not been given in the notice.

¶7

To entertain this appeal, the Appellants will first have to cross the hurdle of making a pre-deposit u/s. 18(1) the sale has not taken place and therefore as per the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ano. vs. Prudent ARC Ltd & Ors., 2023 OnLine SC 12 the threshold amount

¶8

¶9

for pre-deposit should be the amount mentioned as outstanding in the sale notice which is ₹ 1,13,49,072/- as on 15.06.2022.

¶10

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Appellants have been earnestly making attempts to pay off the entire debt, and a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- was paid on 22.07.2022 as directed by the DRT and thereafter, ₹ 15,00,000/- and ₹ 5,00,000/ were paid towards the OTS proposal. However, the OTS proposal failed and therefore, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of getting the entire amount paid by them reduced from the demanded amount.

¶11

According to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank as of 31.10.2023 there is an outstanding balance of ₹ 1,54,89,203.35 and therefore, the Appellants should be directed to make payment on that amount. However, the amount paid towards the settlement by the Appellants is admitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

¶12

The statement of account has been filed by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent which also includes the legal charges and the unapplied interest which is challenged by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants. Taking the entire facts and circumstances, I take the amount mentioned in the sale notice as the threshold amount for payment of pre-deposit.

¶13

The Appellants have produced the income tax returns which would indicate that the Appellants are not in a financial position to make the payment of 50% of the amount demanded. Under the

¶14

¶15

circumstances, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 30,00,000/- as pre-deposit towards which, the Appellants have already deposited a sum of ₹ 7,00,000/- as pre-deposit during the pendency of this appeal. The balance of ₹ 23,00,000/- shall be deposited in two instalments, as stated hereunder.

¶16

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment₹10,00,000/-	31.01.2024
2^ndInstalment₹13,00,000/-	14.02.2024

¶17

The Sarfaesi measures concerning the Sarfaesi action taken in pursuance to the demand notice which is the subject matter of this demand shall stand stayed. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Post on 01.02.2024 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶22

rm-7

¶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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India

Kokila H Shah versus Alchemist Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Adi Impex Infra Services versus State Bank of India

Hdfc Bank Limited versus Rohan Dyes and Intermediates Private Limited

M/s Krishidhan Farms Pvt. Ltd. versus Debt Recovery Officer

Ms. Angle Aruna Rebello Anr. versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.