Partly allowed

Re Infra a Partnership Firm and Ors. v. Central Bank of India

DRAT9 Jan 2025IA/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT allowed the restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-payment of the first pre-deposit instalment due to a one-day delay. An extension of time to pay the remaining balance of the second instalment was also granted.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the appeal allowed; extension of time granted to pay the remaining ₹38 lakhs of the 2nd instalment by 20.01.2025.

Re Infra a Partnership Firm and Ors. versus Central Bank of… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 17/2025 (Extension of Time) And

¶2

M.A. No. 04/2025 (Restoration)

¶3

¶4

(Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 2414/2024- Disposed of)

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. Re Infra, A Partnership Firm & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Central Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶9

Mr. Puneet Gogad along with Ms. Samita V., Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Vilas Deshmane, Advocate for Respondent appeared through a Video Conference.

¶10

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶11

The appellants filed this application for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed for non-payment of the 1^st instalment of pre-deposit on 26.12.2024 as directed by this Tribunal vide order 12.12.2024. It is submitted that a sum of ₹50 lakhs which was to be paid on 26.12.2024 was paid only on 27.12.2024, and hence, the one-day delay.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the amount may be received condoning the delay of one day and the appeal be restored to file. There is another application filed by the appellant as I.A. No. 17/2025 seeking an extension of time to pay the 1

¶13

2^nd instalment a sum of ₹50 lakhs which is due and payable today, i.e., 09.01.2025. The appellants were supposed to be a sum of ₹50 lakhs today but it is submitted they could arrange a sum of ₹12 lakhs only, and for the balance ₹38 lakhs, 15 days is sought.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank has vehemently opposed these applications stating that the reason stated for restoration of the appeal and also the extension is not sustainable. It is also contended that the auction purchaser has not been made out as a party in this appeal and therefore, the restoration of the appeal in his absence would not be proper.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the submits that the application for impleading the auction purchaser was already made in the S.A. before the D.R.T. which has been allowed and the party has been impleaded and, in this appeal, also the application is made for impleading the auction purchaser but in the interregnum, the appeal got dismissed for non-compliance of payment of the 1^st instalment on time.

¶16

Considering all these facts and circumstances, I find that the opportunity has to be granted to the appellants to contest the appeal on merits. On the date of the order, they had already paid a sum of ₹1 crore and the total amount that was payable toward the pre-deposit ₹2 crore. The balance of ₹1 crore was directed to be paid in two equal instalments of ₹50 lakhs each within the gap of two weeks each. The 1^st instalment was paid with a delay of one day but unfortunately, there was no application before the date of payment for extension time and hence, the appeal was dismissed.

¶17

¶18

Considering these facts and circumstances, I find that the appellants have made an earnest attempt to pay the amount of predeposit and hence, the application for restoration is allowed. The 2^nd instalment which is due and payable today has also not been paid and the Ld. Counsel submits that a sum of ₹12 lakhs will be paid today and there is a shortfall of ₹38 lakhs.

¶19

Considering the entire facts and circumstances an extension to pay the 2^nd instalment is granted and the appellants shall pay the shortfall ₹38 lakhs toward the 2^nd instalment by 20.01.2025. The interim order also shall stand restored and continue till the next date of hearing.

¶20

List the matter on 21.01.2025 for reporting compliance regarding the payment of pre-deposit.

¶21

psa-10

¶22

Re Infra a Partnership Firm and Ors. v. Central Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Re Infra a Partnership Firm and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kanhayalal Bathija versus Punjab National Bank &amp; Ors.

Ms Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd. versus Bassein Catholic Cooperative Bank Limited

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. versus Uptown Girl

Bank of Baroda versus Powerdeal Energy System (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Sharif Yasin Padiyar versus Bank of India

Ms Agrawal Industries versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Ramesh Kanhayalal Bathija versus Punjab National Bank &amp;amp; Ors.

Ms Hindustan Petrolium Corporation Ltd. versus Bassein Catholic Cooperative Bank Limited

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. versus Uptown Girl

Bank of Baroda versus Powerdeal Energy System (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Sharif Yasin Padiyar versus Bank of India

Ms Agrawal Industries versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Ramesh Kanhayalal Bathija versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.