Dismissed

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, v. State Bank of India

DRAT13 Nov 2025MISC APPEAL/69/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal against an interim order appointing Advocate Commissioners for search and seizure of hypothecated goods, finding the appeal lacking merits due to non-compliance with a conditional stay order requiring payment of Rs.10 crores.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The order appointing Advocate Commissioners stands. Parties bear own costs.

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 13^th day of November, 2025

¶3

PRESENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

MA 69/2025 (Arising out of I.A.No.135/2025 in O.A.No.10/2025 on the file of DRT I,Chennai)

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Registered Office at No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai - 600 010.

¶7

… Appellant

¶8

And

¶9

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Stressed Assets Management Branch, Red Cross Building, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶10

Axis Bank Ltd, Rep. by its Assistant Vice President, Corporate Banking Branch, 2nd Floor, No.3, Club House Road, Chennai - 600 002.

¶11

¶12

HDFC Bank Limited, Rep. by its Asst Vice President No.115, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, 7th Floor, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶13

Mr. Prakash Chand Jain, Managing Director/Guarantor, No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai-600 010.

¶14

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jain, Director/Guarantor, No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai-600 010.

¶15

Mrs. Suraj Kumari Jain, Guarantor, No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys. Chennai - 600 010.

¶16

Mrs. Pramila Jain, Guarantor, No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai - 600 010.

¶17

Mr. Abhilash Mutha, Guarantor, No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai - 600 010.

¶18

¶19

Mrs. Mamtha Abhilash Mutha, Guarantor, No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai - 600 010. 10. M/s. Surya Prakash Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director at No. 144, Purasawalkam High Road, Kellys, Chennai - 600 010. 11. SBI CAP Trustee Company Ltd 3^rd Floor, 34, College Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 006. 12. Indus Ind Bank Ltd, One World Centre 1, 11th Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W) Mumbai-400 013 …Respondents Counsel for Appellant : M/s. Nandakumar Counsel for Respondent 1 : M/s. M.L. Ganesh

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This appeal is filed against the interim order passed by the learned Presiding Officer in OA 10/2025 appointing the Advocate Commissioners to conduct search, seize the hypothecated goods

¶22

¶23

under proper mahazar and prepare the list of such goods and hand over the same to the authorized Officer of the Bank.

¶24

When the appellant moved an application in IA 1336/2025,

¶25

this Tribunal passed a detailed order recording the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the order impugned, directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10 crores to the State Bank of India in two instalments. On payment of first instalment, the Advocate Commissioners were directed to defer from seizing hypothecated stocks, stocks in trade, receivables, book debts etc.

¶26

The said application is posted for compliance today. Today, it is informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conditional order passed by the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.10 crores to the State Bank of India is not complied.

¶27

In view of the detailed order passed in the stay application and that the learned Presiding Officer, passed an order on merits and in accordance with law as to the demands of the situation, this Tribunal finds that this appeal has no merits and is liable to dismissed.

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, tis appeal is dismissed. The order dated 09.10.2025 passed in the stay application shall form part of this order.

¶30

Parties shall bear their own costs.

¶31

Pending IAs, if any, shall stand closed.

¶32

Sd/(JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶33

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Prakash Gold Palace Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, v. State 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

Amit D Shah versus Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

Amit D Shah versus Reliance Commercial Finance Limited

Gita Power versus Punjab National Bank

Punjab National Bank & Ors. versus M/s Arvind Remedies Ltd.

Sv Trading versus Religare Finvest Limited

A O Dbs Bank India Ltd. versus S a Chandrasekar