Allowed

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

DRAT16 Apr 2025MISC APPLICATION/27/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for refund of Rs. 70 Lakhs pre-deposit. It held that the amount is not a secured debt and no security interest was created, directing the Registrar to refund the sum to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Registar, DRAT, Mumbai directed to refund the pre-deposit of Rs. 70 Lakhs with accrued interest, if any, to Petitioner/Appellant No. 1.

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products versus Rajkot Nagrik… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)

¶2

M.A. No. 27 12025^(Refund of^Deposit) In ' (Misc. Appeal No. O7l2024-Disposed of)

¶3

D:ated: 15.A4.2A25

¶4

The matter is taken up for hearing^{by way of a} Fraecipe filed by the Petitionets/Appellants^for s.eekin$ Urgent felief.

¶5

This Application. is llted to refund^{the pre} deposit amount of Rs.70 Lakhs^{deposited by the} Petitio.nQrs/Appellants at^{ttre time of entefiaining} the Misc. oool* No. 07'12024.

¶6

It is submitted by Learned^Counselfor PetitlonerslAppellants that the Misc.^AppealNo- O7l2A24 was disposed- of on^{1'4.02,2025 with a} direction to DR}II, Ahmedabad^{to dispose of the} SA 321,/2OI9, as expeditiously as^{possible at any} rate within thr:ee months from the^{date of receipt of} copy of the order. In the said circumstar,rcesi^this Application is filed to refund of^{pre depositamount'}

¶7

It is furtjee-r suo'miited that t}e,refund may lre ordered in favour of Petitioner/Appellant Trlo,i.1,, Shail eshbhai Vashra:rnbhai ehhayad. The Affidavit shows that PetitionersfApoellants 1.1, 1.2, l.g? 2 I and 3, have agreed. I'or r'efund^p_f t]li:s amoUnt to,, Petitioner/Appellant No. 1. 1.

¶8

Reinarks at cause tist shOws that notice to Respondents 1 and 2 served. There is no repreSentatidn for RespondeutS 1 atrd 2. Respondents 1 artd.Z are called absent and sel ex pdrte.

¶9

Jn view of t}e disposal of M-isc. Appeal No. O712A24, this Tribunal is sf the view that the Fetitiongrs/Appellants are errtitled for refurrd of this amAqn't beoause this amount is not a secured deht, no. secUrity interest is erea-td and there is 4o attachraer,rt in arry^proce.ediag. S under Section X3(10) of the Act'read with Rule 1.1 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,'2AO2,

¶10

In view of the sarne;r the Application in M.A. No.27 /2A25- is aflowed. Registrar,, DRAT; Ivlumbai, is directed to refur,rd the arnount with accrued

¶11

interest, if any, to the PetitionerlAppellant No.1.i, Shaileshbhai Vashrambhai Chhayani.

¶12

.r,o, .u oonff.HH[fr, t HENNA, (lN-CltARGE, DFAT, MLIlvlBAll PAM

¶13

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products v. Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Shivshankar Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd. versus Asset Reconstruetion Company India Ltd.

Central Railway through Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Carriage and Wagon) Office versus the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Central Railway through Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Carriage and Wagon) Office versus the Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Mr. Vilas Vasant Gandhe versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Janak Jairam Kataria versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda