Disposed

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

DRAT20 Sept 2024IA/643/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT, Mumbai, addressed an appeal challenging a lower tribunal's order declining interim protection against asset possession. The court directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the demanded amount upfront and the balance in two instalments to continue the appeal. Upon payment compliance, possession scheduled for September 22, 2024, was deferred.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit 25% pre-deposit upfront and balance in two instalments; possession scheduled for 22.09.2024 deferred till next date.

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.643/2024 (WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.1995/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Live In Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶6

… Appellant/s

¶7

V/s.

¶8

HDFC Bank & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶9

Mr Prashant Pandit, Advocate for Appellants.

¶10

Mr Rishabh Shah (through video conferencing) along with Mr Indrajeet Deshmukh, Ms Aditi Biswas i/b M/s. Vidhii Partners, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶11

-: Order dated: 20/09/2024:-

¶12

The appellants are in appeal impugning the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No.491 of 2024 dated 18.09.2024 declining to grant any interim protection about taking over the possession of the secured assets by the respondent bank under the provisions of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Secured Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short) for recovery of the debt allegedly due from the appellants.

¶13

To entertain the appeal, the appellants must comply with the mandatory provisions u/s 18(1) by depositing the pre-deposit amount. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served only yesterday; therefore, the Ld. Counsel appearing for them has not been sufficiently

¶14

¶15

instructed with regard to the hearing of the application for waiver of deposit. However, the Ld. Counsel submits that there is a total outstanding debt of ₹11 crores. Even as per the demand notice issued under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the amount demanded is ₹5,78,32,283.70. The apprehension of the appellant is that the taking over of the possession of the subject property is scheduled on 22.09.2024, and hence, there is no time for filing a reply and hearing the matter on merits. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he is willing to deposit 25% of the pre-deposit amount upfront, and the question of whether the waiver of 25% could be granted or not can be determined after the reply is filed.

¶16

Under the circumstances, the appellants are directed to deposit 25% of the threshold amount ₹5,78,32,283.70 as pre-deposit, that is, the amount of Rs.1,44,75,000/-. The respondent bank is at liberty to file a reply to the application for waiver of deposit which shall be determined at a later stage. The Ld. Counsel is for the appellants is willing to pay a sum of ₹15 lakhs today by RTGS which appears to be too little and therefore, the appellants are directed to deposit the balance ₹1,29,75,000/- in two equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each as stated hereunder.

¶17

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment of₹64,87,500/-	04.10.2024
2^ndInstalment of₹64,87,500/-	18.10.2024

¶18

In view of the payment made today, the possession scheduled to be taken on 22.09.2024 shall stand deferred till the next date.

¶19

¶20

Default in payment of any of the amount/instalment on time shall entail the dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶21

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

¶22

As and when the said amount is deposited, it 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.

¶23

Post on 07.10.2024 for reporting compliance towards 1^st instalment/hearing on application for waiver of deposit.

¶24

Sd/Chairperson

¶25

Nidhi-32

¶26

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sandeep D. Gawali and Ors.

Shri Mahesh Lalchand Mirani versus the Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank

Axis Bank versus Vinayak Metal Industries

Shri Dattatraya M Gaurav versus Union Bank of India & Anr.

Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited versus Mr rajeshkumar Triveniprasad Upadhyay

Axis Trustee Services Limited and Another versus Reliance Infrastructure Limited