N Kumar Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Nandkumar Harchandani v. Central Bank of India

DRAT3 Apr 2025IA/129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal held that the appellants had deposited an amount falling short of the mandatory 25% requirement. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 19,38,871.50 to satisfy Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to entertain the appeal, extending an interim order post-deposit date.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs. 19,38,871.50 on or before 28.04.2025, failure to which the appeal shall stand rejected.

N Kumar Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI) l.A. No. 129/2025 (WOD) In Misc. Appeal No. 42/2025 Dated: 03.04.2025 When the matter is taken up, it is brought to my notice that the Affidavit filed in support of Section 14 Petition, filed before Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Nagpur, Bank official stated that “the immovable property is not under any tenancy etc., i.e. to the knowledge of the Applicant Bank, no tenancy etc., has been created over tire said property. However, the borrowers have entered into the lease rental arrangement with the Applicant Bank and the details of the same are contained in the sanction letters issued by the Bank from time to time.” It is further submitted that two loans were availed by the borrowers, one for Rs.45 Crores for hotel project and another for Rs.20 Crores for Lease Rental Discounting (LRD) facility. As on today, the amount outstanding, according to the Petitioners/Appellants, is about Rs.45 Crores.

¶2

Dated: 03.04.2025

¶3

On the other hand, Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submits that as on 18.02.2025, an amount of Rs.44,38,77,743.48p, is due from Petitioners/Appellants. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 11 Crores was I deposited by Petitioners/Appellants on the basis of order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Learned Chairperson, DRAT, Mumbai. This matter is listed today for final hearing primarily on the basis of submission made by Learned Counsel Respondent Bank that the rents against which the loan was sanctioned would be payable to the Bank. Without paying the rents to the Bank the borrowers appropriated the rents for themselves. As already indicated, the loan of Rs.20 Crores was specifically sanctioned against the rental to be received. If that be the case, how an Affidavit was filed by the Bank before Learned COM stating that there was no tenancy created. If the contention raised in the said Affidavit is taken as true, then there is no cause for receiving the rents from the tenants and pay to the Bank. In the said circumstances, this matter requires elaborate consideration.

¶4

<•

¶5

¶6

Since, Rs. 11 Crores had already been deposited by the Petitioners/Appellants, which is just falling short minimum of 25% requirement. Thus, this Tribunal is of the view that depositing further 50% of amount of Rs. Rs.38,77,743/-, would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶7

Admittedly, 50% of Rs.38,77,743/- comes to

¶8

Rs.19,38,871.50p.

¶9

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs.19,38,871.50p, to be deposited on or before

¶10

28.04.2025.

¶11

It is made clear that failure to deposit of the above amount, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed.

¶12

Post the case on 30.04.2025, for compliance of.

¶13

Interim order already granted is extended till

¶14

then.

¶15

CHAIRPERSON,HENN Al (IN-CHARGE, DRAT. MUMBAI) PAM

N Kumar Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Nandkumar Harchandani v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Kumar Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Nandkumar Harchandani v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prime Downtown Estates Pvt. Ltd. versus Yes Bank

Stemkor International Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Mrs Madhuri Madhukar Tijare versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd.

Pothuguntla Vishnu Praveen Kumar versus The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Shivkumar Shankarrao Deshpande versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah versus The Authorized Officer the Bhagyodaya Co-Op Bank Limited