Allowed

Ritesh Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT16 Dec 2024IA/813/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the dismissal of a DRT appeal concerning a property sale, the Tribunal held that since the entire sale proceeds were deposited pursuant to a prior High Court order, no further pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB Act is necessary, granting the waiver and staying recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB Act; proceedings before the Recovery Officer stayed.

Ritesh Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 813/2024(WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 2444/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

Ritesh Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bank of Baroda & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala along with Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Jai Singh, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 Bank appeared through Video Conferencing.

¶8

Mr. Hitesh Dave, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 appeared through Video Conferencing.

¶9

-: Order dated: 16/12/2024:-

¶10

The appellants are in appeal a second time, challenging the dismissal of Appeal No. 14 of 2009 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) under Sec. 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“RDDB Act”, for short). The earlier appeal filed as No. 84/2010 was remanded for fresh consideration of Appeal No. 14/2009. The D.R.T. considered the appeal afresh and vide order dated 30/10/2024, dismissed it once again. The appellants are aggrieved and hence in appeal.

¶11

The aforesaid I.A. is filed by the appellants to seek a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit required under Sec. 21 of the RDDB Act. Original Application (O.A.) No. 319 of 1999 was allowed on 05/08/2002 and a Recovery Certificate was issued in favour of the respondent Bank of Baroda. Recovery proceedings were initiated and

¶12

¶13

the subject property was ordered to be attached on 09/09/2003 by the Recovery Officer as an identified property belonging to the appellants. The property was put up for auction several times but the sale failed for want of compliance of the mandatory provisions under the rules. The property was once again put up for sale vide notice dated 10/08/2009 and the sale was conducted on 22/09/2009. The property was successfully sold to the highest bidder. The appellants challenged the sale by filing Appeal No. 14/2009 before the D.R.T. The appeal was dismissed and the dismissal was challenged before this Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 84/2010. Vide order dated 29/11/2013, the order of the D.R.T. was confirmed in the appeal was dismissed. The appellants filed a Special Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. The matter got remanded to this Tribunal vide order dated 17/02/2016. On second consideration of the appeal, it was remanded to the D.R.T. and Appeal No. 14/2009 was once again dismissed vide the impugned order and the appellants are in appeal again.

¶14

It is the contention of the appellants that the sale notice was not in accordance with Rule 55 of the II Schedule to the Income Tax Act. The other objection taken by the appellants is that the valuation report relied upon by the Recovery Officer (R.O.) is more than 14 months old while the Regulations for the functioning of the D.R.T. insist on a valuation report which is not over a year old. It is pointed out that the impugned order does not consider the objections raised by the appellants in the proper perspective.

¶15

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants and the

¶16

¶17

respondent bank. Records perused.

¶18

The appeal before the D.R.T. was preferred under the provisions of the pre-amended Act. This Tribunal had as per the provisions of the RDDB Act discretion to grant a total exemption of the mandatory pre-deposit under Sec. 21. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat had vide order dated 26/12/2003 directed the appellants to deposit ₹ 23 lakhs with the Recovery Officer and the same is invested in fixed deposit. The subject property was sold for ₹ 21,05,000/-considering the fact that the entire sale amount has been deposited and also considering the fact that the present appeal is a continuation of the appeal filed before the D.R.T. under the provisions of the pre-amended Act, a further deposit under Sec. 21 may not be necessary.

¶19

Hence, the mandatory pre-deposit is waived. I.A. 813 of 2024 is allowed. The proceedings before the Recovery Officer shall stand stayed till disposal of this appeal.

¶20

List the matter before the Ld. Registrar on 31.12.2024.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

mks-07

¶23

Ritesh Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Oil Mill 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

Karne Hospital Private Ltd. versus Piramal Capital and Housing Finance

Bansari Alloys Private Limited versus Indian Bank

Mr Sachin Tiwari and Anr. versus Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Jayashree D Pawaskar versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Mr. Jacob Panikulangura Joseph & Ors. versus Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Stemkor International Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India