Disposed

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane v. State Bank of India

DRAT9 Jan 2024MISC APPEAL/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that an appeal under section 30 of the RDB Act cannot be entertained without satisfying the predeposit condition under section 30A. It directed the adjudicating officer to decide on the deposit and hear the parties within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ld. Presiding Officer directed to decide on section 30A predeposit, hear parties, and conclude within two weeks.

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

Misc. Appeal No. 108/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Umesh Arun Dhamane … Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶5

An Advocate for the Appellant is present. Mr. D.S. Paranjpe, Advocate for Respondent (SBI) Mr. Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶6

The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 18.07.2022 in Interim Application (I.A.) No. 798/2022 in Appeal No. 2/2021 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.) wherein the aforesaid Interlocutory Application was disposed of by the Ld. Presiding Officer stated that the maintainability of the appeal shall be considered during the final hearing of the appeal. The appeal has been adjourned.

¶7

The Appeal No. 2/2021 is preferred by the borrower Respondent No. 2 herein challenging the order of the Recovery Officer dated 01.12.2021. The property has already been sold and the Appellant herein is the Auction Purchaser who has deposited the entire sale consideration and waiting to get delivery of the property. In the aforesaid I.A. which has been dismissed by the Ld. Presiding Officer, the Appellant had urged that the appeal u/s 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB “Act” for

¶8

¶9

short) cannot be entertained unless the mandate under section 30 A of the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993(“ RDB Act”, for short) has been complied with.

¶10

Section 30 A read thus:

¶11

“Where an appeal is preferred against any order of the Recovery Officer, under section 30, by any person from whom the amount of debt is due to a bank or financial institution or consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal.”

¶12

A plain reading of the section indicates that an appeal shall be not entertained by the Tribunal unless the person who has appealed deposits with the Tribunal 50% amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal. Given the said mandate, the Ld. Presiding Officer could not have passed any interlocutory order without first entertaining the appeal to satisfy the condition precedent of the predeposit contemplated under section 30 A of the RDB Act.

¶13

This proposition of depositing the amount for entertaining the appeal is no longer in res-integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Division Bench, Aurangabad in Kumandas Visanji & Co. & Ors. V/s Punjab National Bank & Ors. Writ Petition No. 11618/2019.

¶14

Hence, the dismissal of the I.A. to decide on the mandatory predeposit is improper. The Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to hear the parties concerning the deposit of the amount contemplated u/s 30 A of the RDB Act before entertaining the appeal.

¶15

¶16

This Misc. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that the Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to decide on section 30 A on the RDB Act, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two weeks from receipt of the order of this Tribunal.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

psa-11

¶19

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane v. State Bank of India

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

khodal cotton processing Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

The Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus mrs kavita vittalakkar

Smt Shalan Sakharam Patil and Ors. versus Bandhan Bank Limited

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