Omprakash R. Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

DRAT15 Feb 2024MISC APPLICATION/356/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, noted an admission by the respondent bank that dues were partially settled via government settlement and sale of pledge. Exercising discretion for pre-amendment periods, the tribunal granted total exemption from the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993. Adjourned for final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Grant of total exemption from mandatory pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, 1993.

Omprakash R. Agarwal versus Central Bank of India & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A. No. 356/2013 (WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal No. 104/2013

¶4

Between

¶5

Omprakash R Agarwal … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Central Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala along with Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Appellant.

¶8

Ms. Sunita, i/b M/s. Mr O.A. Das & Associates, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶9

-: Order dated: 15/02/2024:-

¶10

The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 29.04.2009 in T.A. No. 159/1996 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ahmedabad (D.R.T) whereby a decree was granted for realization of ₹ 4,23,31,409.32 together with interest at the rate of 4% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the O.A. till date of realization. 2. The recovery certificate was issued accordingly. The Appellant is aggrieved mainly because of the reasons there is an admission by the bank that they had received a total sum of ₹ 2,63,57,500/- by way of settlement of dues from the Government of Gujarat and also by way of sale of pledge, goods and therefore, there would be very less amount due and payable from the Appellant.

¶11

The Appellant has also taken a plea that they are not liable to pay any amount because their entire dues have been satisfied and full satisfaction was recorded by the bank. The fact that the entire dues have been cleared or not is something that has to be examined while

¶12

¶13

entertaining this appeal. The Appellant will first have to make a predeposit u/s. 21 of the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (“RDDB & FI”, for short).

¶14

Since the matter pertains to the period before the amendment of Sec. 21 of the Act, this Tribunal is empowered to grant total exemption of the mandatory pre-deposit.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has also fairly admitted that the amount that has been recovered ought to have been accepted and the decree could not have been for the entire amount prayed for.

¶16

Given such submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, I find that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal has to be exercised in granting a total exemption to the Appellant from depositing the pre-deposit u/s. 21 of RDDB & FI Act.

¶17

7 The appeal has already been taken on file and replies also have come in.

¶18

List on 15.04.2024 for hearing.

¶19

rm-24

¶20

Omprakash R. Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash R. Agarwal v. Central Bank of India & Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Ashok Textiles versus G P Parsik Bank

Ashish Ramesh Hirurkar versus The Authorised Officer Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Shailesh Kantilal Patel versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Mr. Anant Subrya Bhat & 2 Ors. versus Phonex Arc Private Limited & 5 Ors.

shantiben nvalkishore kamti and Anr. versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

M/s Mm International versus pegasus assets reconstruction pruvarte limited