Mohan Harakchand Bhandari and 3 Ors. versus Bank of India

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAT (SiTTlN<3AT'-CHENNAif

JDated: 09;0 i) Ord following-o	MisC; .Appeal Dy No. 9.4-7/2025 7;2025 er pronounced (vide separate order) in operi court; The rder as passed: As this Appeal' is against; an interlocutory order, this Tribunal, is of the view that there 'is ho requirement to make pre' deposit under Section -21
	Of the RDB Act, :1993:1 by the-
	Pctitidners/Appcllants.
	Petitioners/Appellants :are granted 30 days time for
	order. depositing the remaining,Ps.3 Crores as pre deposit •required under Section SOA.of'the1 RDB'Act,- 19.'93, for entertaining the Appeal in Appeal No.2/2025 before DRT, Pune, from .the date of uploading this;
, Accordingl : disposed o	y, the Appeal in- Misc. Appeal. Dy. No. 947/2025 is f Bdth/pafties shall bear their, own costs. Ali pending	'J ■ <
: ;iAs, ifany;	stand •closed
PAM	CHMRPERSOJcWjwT, CHeNNAl’- (IN-CHARGRiDRAT. MUMBAI)

¶3

z.4

¶4

'■

¶5

debt Recovery Appellate tribunal-mumbai^

¶6

(SITTING AT -CHENNAI)

¶7

Dated 9* of July, 2025

¶8

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CORPERSON

¶9

Misc. Appe^ Dy No. 947/2(325

¶10

:(iA;:Nor 1-58172625 an AppeairNd.02/2025'm in MA ^17201^,Before DRT7?Puriej

¶11

Between

¶12

-Mohan: Harakchahd .Bhandari FiatJNb:. ■604, Mantri Lawns, Anand Park, Aundh, :Pune-4 l.'l 0Q7. 2. Xiran Hafakchand Bhandari Flat..Nd-160,4>. Mantri iLawns, AnandTark,

¶13

Aundh, Bune-411 007.

¶14

'3; ■;Pr^ash^HarakGhand Bhandari, Elat.No. :604, Mantri Lawns,: Anand Park, Auhdh/Puh’e-411 007. 4'. BilGare Limited. 1028, Shirdli, Rajguninagar, Pune.-4T0 505..

...Appelld^is

And

Bank pf India,

Star House, OhS; G Block, Bandra/Kurla, Complex, Bandra (East), ;Mumbair40Q 051; CounsellorAppelldrits’: Sr- Advocate.Mr. E. Omprakash for MrVJndr^ectHirigane j Counsdl'JorRespondent Bank-. MrC.iP.JRavindranath-Menon 1

;..iResppndent’

($W)

ORDER

This Appeal is filed against the order passed in LA. No. 1581/2025 in Appeal No.02/2025, by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune, whereby the aforesaid Application was dismissed giving liberty to the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit the remaining amount mentioned in the order passed in IA No. 1149/2025 on or before 29.05.2025.-

¶23

The fact leading to filing of this Appeal is that the Petitioners/Appellants are the guarantors and one PT Biltube Indonesia is the borrower. In the Miscellaneous Application No. 11/2012 filed by Respondent, Bank of India against the borrowers and guarantors, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune, passed an order on 19.01.2023 allowing the M.A. No, 11/2012 with a direction to issue Recovery Certificate against Defendant Nos. 2> 3, 4 and 5 for US $ 1,915,928.44 (equivalent to Indian Rs.9,57,96,422/-) at the rate of 50/- per US $ as on 24.02.2012 together with future interest at the rate of 2% per annum on this amount from

¶24

2

¶25

the date- of Application Le., 24.02.20T2 till realization of.

¶26

amount due.

¶27

.3; The Bank has filed an Application before Recovery Officer in Recoyeiy Proceeding No. 281/2023 for attachment and sale of share- in the Company-Bilcare Limited, belong to the Certificate Debtor No. 1. and 4 and in their subsidiary companies. The Petitioners/Appellants submitted One Time Settlement (OTS) Proposal bn 30.05.202:3 offering; to pay USD 550j000. The, said OTS proposal was accepted by Bank of India, and in principle approval was given by its letter dated 12<06.2023. On 18>02i2025.> Learned Recovery Officer passed an order granting time till 10.03.2025 for Certificate Debtors 1 and 4 for making payments as per the: Recovery Certificatej failing which the shares of Certificate Debtors 1 and 4- would be attached, and sold. Against this order, the Petitioners/Appellants filed an Appeal’ in Appeal Nd, 02/2025 before Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune, offering to deposit. 50% of Rs. 12 Crores Ih five inst^rhents. Learned Presiding Officer^ DPT,, Pune, passed an order on

¶28

3

¶29

29.04.2025 directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 50% of Rs.12 Crores i.e., Rs.6 Crores in two instalments at Rs.3 Crores each, on or before 01.05.2025 and 15.05.2025 respectively.

¶30

The case of the Petitioners/Appellants is that the Petitioners/Appellants complied with 1st condition by depositing Rs.3 Crores and filed an Application in I.A. No. 1581/2025 seeking extension of time to make deposit of 2nd instalment of Rs.3 Crores in three instalments at Rs.l Crore each. In the said Application, the impugned order is passed. Therefore, this Appeal is filed.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants have been making genuine attempts to settle loan dues. To show their bonafide, the Petitioners/Appellants deposited Rs.3 Crores and only sought extension of time for depositing the remaining Rs.3 Crores to satisfy the requirement under Section 30A of the RDB Act, 1993. The

¶32

4

¶33

PetitioherS/AppeUahts are genuinely in. financial hardship. They are: only the; guarantors, and he; submits that, PCtitiorie'rS/Appellahts may1 be given three months1 time Tor making deposit of the balance sum of Rs.3 Crores.

¶34

It is his further submission that this Appeal is filed only against the order refusing to grant extension of time for making, deposit. There; is no determination of debt due involved in the impugned order. Therefore, this Appeal may be disposed of without pre-deposit.

¶35

ih support of his submissions,, Learned Senior Counsel for PetibLdners/Appellants relied on the judgement of Honhle 'High Cduft: pf Madras 'in J.S. Traders and Ors Vs. The. Lakshmi Vilas Bank reported in Manu/TN/4.402/201^ for1 the proposition that the Petitioners/Appellants are not liable to make pre-deposit if the Appeal is filed against the order passed in- an Interlocutory Application, when there is no liabilitydetermined by the DRT in the. Interlocutory Order.

¶36

5

¶37

For the same proposition, he relied on the judgement of HonTde High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 12028 of 2022 in the case of M/s. Gadekar

¶38

Ginning and Pressing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Canara Bank and Anr. Here in this case, in an Appeal filed against the Application filed for condonation of delay, it was held that pre-deposit is not required. He drew the, attention , of this Tribunal, the order of Hon^le High Court of Madras in Sree Jeya Soundharam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank reported in 2019 (3) CTC 497, for the proposition that if the Appeal is filed against an interlocutory order, if debt is not determined, there is no requirement to make pre-deposit.

¶39

To strengthen this submission, Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants also pressed into service of the judgement of HonTile Supreme Court in M/s. Sunshine Builders & Developers Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd., & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 5290/2025, for the proposition that the pre deposit is required only when final order is passed by the

¶40

6

¶41

DRT, determining the liabilities of the borrower or other liability of any person. However, Honhle Supreme Court. referred the matter back to Honhie High Court to rehear and decide’ the matter afresh.

¶42

10 It is the submission of Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that the Petitioners/Appellants are: ready to deposit the pre-deposit as required under Section 30A of the BDB Act, 1993, but the only indulgence sought is

¶43

that Petitioners/Appellants may be given some time for depositing the 2rtd instalment of Rs. 3 Crores,, without, pre deposit as required under Section 21 of the RDB: Act* 1993.

¶44

l.L Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank vehemently opposed the., extension of time. What is required Under Section 30A of the RDB Act, 1993, is that the Appeal shall not •be entertained by this Tribunal unless the Petitioners/Appellants deposit with this Tribunal 50% of the amount pf debt due as determined by the Tribunals When the Appeal is filed against order passed by Learned Presiding

¶45

7

¶46

OfficeTj DRT, Pune, the Appeal shall hot be entertained by this Tribunal without making the pre-deposit of 50%, under Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993, which may be reduced to 25%, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Even the two instalments granted by Learned Presiding Officer were not correct.

¶47

In support of his submissions. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank relied on the judgement of Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Limited Vs. Ambuj A. Kasliwal and Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 1041 and the order of DRAT, Delhi in Appeal No.47/2025, in the case of Orchid Kids Paradise Education and Ors. Vs. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd, and Ors., for the proposition that an Appeal cannot be entertained without the mandatory pre-deposit.

¶48

He also relied on the judgement of Hon1316 Supreme Court in S.E. Graphites Private Limited Vs. State of Telangana and Ors., reported in (2020) 14 SCC 521, for the interpretation of word “shall not be entertained”. It is his

¶49

8

¶50

submission, that when there is pre-condition, to make ^deposit for entertaining the- appeal, the appeal cannot be entertaLhed without, pre-deposit. He also relied, on the' judgement of Honlole High Court of Madras in CRP No. 5-351/2024 in the casei of Shree Sana Spinners and Ors. V/s. Tarnilnad Mercantile Bank, wherein the Honble High Court confirmed the order of this Tribunal with regard to pre-deposit.

¶51

Considered the rival submissions arid perused the records.

¶52

From the facts narrated above, it is made clear that Petitidners/Appellants were ready to make preL,deposit 50% of Rs.,1‘2: Crores, to meet requirement,of Section 30A of the RDB Act, 1993 for entertaining the Appeal No.2/2025. In view Of the financial difficulty, Petitioners/Appellants sought live instalments for making this deposit; However> Learned Presiding ^Officer,. D'RT, Pune, granted two instalments. Of these two instalments, first instalment was paid and Petitioners/Appellants sought for extension of time for

¶53

9

¶54

depositing the second instalment. Against the dismissal of the Application filed for extension of time, this Appeal is filed.

¶55

Admittedly, this Appeal is. filed against an order passed against an Interlocutory Application where the determination of debt is not involved. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants has also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Hindustan Home Needs Vs. DRAT, Chennai & Ors., in WP No.2467/2020 for the proposition that the Petitioners/Appellants can file an Application seeking extension of time for making pre-deposit.

¶56

The Honlile Supreme Court in Sunshine Builders & Developers case observed as follows:-

¶57

“15. We are of the view, of course prima facie that the expression "any order" should be given some meaningful interpretation. Should any and every order that may be passed by ORT, if sought to be challenged, be made subject to pre-deposit?

¶58

16. One can understand that if any final order is passed by the DRT, determining the liability of the borrower or any other liability 10

¶59

of any person,, and an appeal is prefeffed. under Section 18 of the SARFAES1Act to the appellate^ tribunal, the provision ofpr&deppsit tuotild cothe into. play. However^ what would be - the position if an order like the one passed in the present litigation, i.e^, declining to irnpledd the auction purchaser in the pending proceedings before IfRf is concerned?

¶60

17>. We are of the view that we should remand the'matter to the ■ High Court for the purpose of reconsidering the aforesaid aspects Of the. matter*

¶61

18 In Sree- Jeya Soundharam Textile Mills case, it was observed, as follows:.

¶62

“21.5 Though the appeals are filed under Section 18 of the SARFAESi Act or under Section 20 of the. Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act as against the. order passed by the Debts-Recovcry Tribunal, the liability of pre-deposit under Section 18 and Section 21 would .attract bnly'vwhSh ah appeal, is filed against an order determining the,- liability. In other words, it could be said that when a liability is determined, by the Tribunal, the aggrieved party can invoke the .jurisdiction either under Section; 20 of 1993 Act or under Section 18 of the SARFAESI.Act. Such party shali.be subject to the conditibns imposed under the said' provisions of the Acts. -Other than such an orderj if appealed, the provisions under Section •18-of the SARFAESi Act and. Section 21 of the 1993 Act'are not attracted. Therefore;,..in respect of the appeals filed, as- against thcThteflocutory.orders, where; liability is not determined,, the appellants are: not liable to make the pre-deposit.”

¶63

11

¶64

■f

¶65

From these judgments, it is made clear that when there is no determination of liability is involved in an order passed in Interlocutory Application, pre-deposit is not mandatory.

¶66

Here in this case, Petitioners/Appellants are ready to make pre-deposit of 50% as required under Section 30A of the RDB Act, 1993, to entertain the Appeal before DRT in Appeal No 02/2025. This Appeal is filed against an interlocutory order where no determination of liability is involved. Thus, this Tribunal finds that there is no requirement to make pre deposit in terms of Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993.

¶67

Further, this Tribunal, taking into consideration the financial difficulty expressed by Petitioners/Appellants, is of the view that, Petitioners/Appellants shall be granted 30 days time for depositing the remaining of Rs.3 Crores as pre deposit required under Section 30A of the RDB Act, 1993, for entertaining the Appeal in Appeal No.2/2025 before DRT, Pune, from the date of uploading this order.

12

»•

. ■ J 1

1

••

• ■ r

.•i

Accordingly,: the Appeal, in .'Misc. Appeal Dy No. 947/2025 is disposed of. Both parties.1 shall bear their own costs.. All pending.IAs, if;any, .stand closed.

¶76

(Dictated to Athistamani, PS, transcribed by hery corrected and signed by me this 9^ .of July, 2025]

¶77

[ ihistice G ChJWra^'ekharan]* CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENfiAI (lN;CHARGEJ;p^Ti;:MUMBAI)

¶78

13

Mohan Harakchand Bhandari and 3 Ors. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Harakchand Bhandari and 3 Ors. v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Moongipa Realty Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Akshay Anil Sarda versus Shri Mahalaxmi Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Akshay Anil Sarda versus Shri Mahalaxmi Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Avinash Bharat Pawar versus the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Pushpam Plaza Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Ms Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda