Allowed

Shree Mahakali Metal Industries and Ors. v. Canara Bank

DRAT3 Jan 2025MISC APPLICATION/2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debtors Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed the application for restoration of an appeal that was previously dismissed for failure to pay the balance pre-deposit. The court condoned the delay, admitted the payment today, imposed a cost fine, and restored the appeal to file.

What did the court decide?

The sum of ₹30 lakhs was accepted as pre-deposit, the delay was condoned, and the appeal with the interim order was restored to file subject to payment of ₹5 lakhs as cost to the respondent bank.

Shree Mahakali Metal Industries and Ors. versus Canara… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRAT (2025)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson M.A. No. 02/2025 (Restoration) In

¶2

(Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 2524-Disposed of)

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Shree Mahakali Metal Industries & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Authorised Officer, …Respondent/s

¶7

Canara Bank

¶8

Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala, i/b Ms. Kanjani Trivedi, Advocate for Appellants.

¶9

Ms. Kadambari Patil, i/b Ms. Vaishali Bhilare, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

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

¶11

The appellants have filed this application for restoration of the appeal that was dismissed for non-compliance of payment of pre-deposit on 20.12.2024.

¶12

The appellants were directed to pay a sum of ₹40 lakhs as a predeposit for getting this appeal entertained. They offered to pay a sum of ₹10 lakhs on that date of the order which was complied with. The balance ₹30 lakhs was to be paid in two instalments within the gap of two weeks each which were defaulted. As a result the appeal got dismissed.

¶13

¶14

Today the application for restoration has come up for hearing. The appellants are ready with the demand draft of a sum of ₹30 lakhs to be deposited toward the balance pre-deposit and financial strain is stated to be the reason for not depositing the amount on time.

¶15

I find that the appellants have been granted sufficient indulgence because the D.R.T. had directed the appellants to deposit 40% of the debt amount for an injunction and that was no-compliance by them and they came up in appeal. 5. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank has vehemently opposed this application stating that further indulgence may not be shown and despite being a small amount the appellants could not pay.

¶16

After having anxiously considered the arguments and the rival submissions, I find that an opportunity should be granted to the appellants for hearing the appeal on merits. Hence, the sum of ₹30 lakhs being offered to payment toward the pre-deposit shall be received today and the delay is condoned. The appeal is restored to file subject to payment of a sum of ₹5 lakhs as the cost to the respondent bank which shall be adjusted toward the debt due. The amount shall be paid within two weeks, i.e., on or before 17.01.2025 and the appeal and interim order are restored.

¶17

List the matter on 20.01.2025 for reporting compliance regarding the payment of cost.

¶18

Interim orders shall continue till the next date of hearing.

¶19

Chairperson

¶20

psa-26

¶21

Shree Mahakali Metal Industries and Ors. v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Mahakali Metal Industries and Ors. v. Canara 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

Suhail Y Khandwani versus Central Bank of India

Svc Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Gagan Hariprasad Malpani

Parveen Prakash Mahtani versus Punjab National Bank

Livein Aqua Solutions Pvt. Ltd. versus Hdfc Bank

Dineshchandra S Maheshwari versus Bank of Baroda

Ms Gayatri Food Products versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited