Dismissed

M/S Wanganga Rice Mill and Ors. v. State Bank of India and Ors.

DRAT16 Apr 2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Wanganga Rice Mill against a High Court order. The court held that the sale notice dated 26.02.2024 pertained to M/s Patel Timber's movable properties, rendering the prayer for its stay irrelevant to the present appeal filed by the appellant. Additionally, the appeal was dismissed as not entertainable because the appellant failed to deposit

What did the court decide?

The prayer for stay of auction proceedings was rejected. The appeal was dismissed as not entertained for want of deposit of deficit court fee.

M/S Wanganga Rice Mill and Ors. versus State Bank of… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

Appeal Dy. No. 243/2019 Date: 16.04.2024

¶2

M/s Wanganga Rice Mill and Ors. Vs. State Bank of India and Ors.

¶3

Present: Shri Basant Patel, In person, Shri Sandeep Arora, counsel for the respondent-Bank,

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent-Bank issued sale notice dated 26.02.2024 scheduling the auction of the property on 18.04.2024, therefore, he prays that his interest may be protected.

¶6

While going through the record, it is found that the properties, which are going to be auctioned on 18.04.2024, are movable properties and the same pertain to M/s Patel Timber Company, who has already filed the S.A. No. 324/2020 before the DRT, Jabalpur. The present appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Tribunal below in M.A. No. 90/2019 seeking restoration of the S.A. No. 143/2019, which was filed by M/s Wainganga Rice Mill. As such both the S.As. are separate and distinct, which were filed by different parties. Hence, the relief sought against the sale notice dated 26.02.2024 issued to M/s Patel Timber cannot be entertained in the present appeal filed by M/s Wainganga Rice Mill. Accordingly, the prayer for stay of the auction proceeding against the said notice is rejected.

¶7

Shri Basant Patel, appellant in person has referred to an order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 8183 of 2022 and has placed reliance on the observation of the Hon’ble High Court, by which this Tribunal has been directed to consider and decide the question with regard to pre-deposit in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court,

¶8

Allahabad in the case on Gopal Ji Gupta Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad through its Chairman and Ors, AIR 2013 Allahabad 175.

¶9

In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court as referred to above, the amount recovered from the auction sale of the property has to be taken into consideration towards pre-deposit for maintaining the appeal, but as per the latest judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8969 of 2022-M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Prudent ARC Limited & Ors., the auction amount cannot be taken into account towards pre-deposit. However, as per the direction of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court vide judgment dated 16.08.2022 passed in M/s Patel Timber Company Vs. Collector, Balaghat (Supra), the matter with regard to pre-deposit is to be decided in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Gopal Ji

¶10

Gupta Vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (Supra) .

¶11

Apart from above, the record shows that even after making prayer seeking time to deposit court fee, the same has not been deposited by the appellant, whereas the appellants were granted time on 15 occasions for the same as per order sheets of this court. As per Rule 13 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the appeal itself is not entertainable as the appellant in person stated that he is not in position to deposit the court fee. Thus, the matter cannot be proceeded on merits for want of court fee. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not entertainable for want of deposit of deficit court fee.

¶12

Justice R. D. Khare Chairperson

¶13

V.N.Giri

M/S Wanganga Rice Mill and Ors. v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Wanganga Rice Mill and Ors. v. State Bank of India and Ors.

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

B a B International versus Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Shamim Jahan versus State Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Prakash Chand Soni

Rambhushan Pandey Son of Rohini Prasad Pandey versus Central Bank of India

Canara bank versus Vijay Veer Singh

Ms Shivansh Communication versus Union Bank of India