Dismissed

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

DRAT23 Jan 2025IA/48/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application seeking an extension of time to pay the first instalment of pre-deposit for an appeal. The tribunal held that granting further indulgence would be unreasonable given the appellants' history of defaults and outstanding dues, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for extension of time dismissed; appeal dismissed; appellants must pay outstanding cost to respondent bank.

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 48/2025 (Extension of Time) In Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 1995/2024

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Live In Aqua Solution Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

HDFC Bank & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Prashant Pandit along with Mr. Jay Pandit, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Nagory along with Mr. Indrajeet Deshumkh, i/b M/s. Vidhii Partners, Advocate for Respondents.

¶8

-: Order dated: 23/01/2025:-

¶9

I.A. No. 643/2024 an application for waiver of pre-deposit was ultimately disposed by this Tribunal vide order 03.01.2025 directing the appellants to pay a sum of ₹2.50 crore as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. 2. When the application for waiver of pre-deposit came up for hearing for 1^st time on 20.09.2024 the appellants wanted interim protection based on the prayer sought and the urgency in the matter. The appellants were directed to deposit 25% of the threshold amount of debt due mentioned in the demand notice and were directed to deposit a sum of ₹1,44,25,000/- toward the pre-deposit in two instalments. The appellants sought an extension of time to pay that amount and the extension was also granted and thereafter, the

¶10

¶11

appellants defaulted in payment of even that 25% which is mandatory pre-deposit without which the appeal could not have been entertained and a further extension was not granted and in resulted in the dismissal of the appeal.

¶12

The appellants thereafter came up with the balance of payment a sum of ₹51.75 lakhs and requested for restoration of the appeal. The restoration application as well as application for waiver were heard together and the appeal was directed to be restored and the appellants were directed to deposit a sum of ₹2.50 crore as pre-deposit. Since the appellants had already deposited a sum of ₹93 lakhs and, paid a sum of ₹51.75 lakhs on the date of the order, the balance ₹1,05,25,000/was directed to be paid in two instalments. The 1^st instalment of ₹55.25 lakhs was due and payable on 17.01.2025 and on 16.01.2025 the appellants came up with this application for an extension of time to pay the 1^st instalment. The appellants have not paid any amount toward the 1^st instalment. Since the counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this application for restoration the appellants were also directed to pay a sum of ₹1 crore as cost in view of the fact that there was an outstanding sum of ₹13 crore payable and the sister concern of the 1^st appellant was also liable to pay the amount to the respondents. The amount of cost a sum of ₹1 crore was directed to be accounted toward the debt due and paid directly to the respondent bank within four weeks. That amount is payable only on 28.02.2025. it was however made clear that the indulgence shown is based on the premise that the appellants shall stick to the payment schedule as directed by this Tribunal. When the appeal was dismissed, the

¶13

¶14

appellants had preferred to challenge the order of dismissal before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. Given the restoration of the appeal that petition was withdrawn.

¶15

It is now submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants is that the order of restoration of the appeal and the direction to deposit the pre-deposit amount has been challenged before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat by filing Special Civil Application No. 674/2025. Since the appellants had sought for extension of time to deposit the 1^st instalment of pre-deposit, the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has granted the liberty to consider the application for extension before this Tribunal on its merits and the Special Civil Application had been adjourned for hearing.

¶16

The appellants have not paid any amount toward the 1^st instalment a sum of ₹55.25 lakhs. It is pertinent to note that the appellants are liable to pay a total sum of ₹13 crore toward the debt due. However, the threshold amount for payment of pre-deposit was only considered based on the amount mentioned in the demand notice which is only ₹5,78,32, 283.70.

¶17

The appellants have been granted sufficient indulgence and were also granted protection vide order dated 20.09.2024 subject to payment of 25% of the pre-deposit in two instalments which was also extended further and ultimately, the appeal got dismissed for default of compliance. The appellants are now not paying any amount toward the 1^st instalment a sum of ₹55.25 lakhs and seek an extension of time, which considering the entire facts and circumstance of this case cannot be held reasonable, and therefore, the application for extension of time

¶18

¶19

filed as I.A. No. 48/2025 stands dismissed. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that a review application is also filed to review the order of this Tribunal dated 03.01.2025. The application if any, shall be listed for consideration. Given the non-compliance of the direction of this Tribunal, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

psa-16

¶22

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Hdfc Bank

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

Bank of Baroda versus E-Star Infotech Ltd.

shailendrakumar dhirubhai nakarani and Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited

Sunil Prabhudas patel versus Rbl Bank Limited

Shri Raju Danial versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Nitin Bhagirath Chandak versus Bank of Baroda

Ramchandra Khandu Shinde versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.