Disposed

M/s J J Corporation v. Asset Reconstruction Company(India) and Ors.

DRAT21 Apr 2026MISC APPLICATION/52/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dbt appellate tribunal at Mumbai directed an intervener housing society to deposit a corpus fund amount of Rs 4,94,106 along with 6% annual interest for default under a 2011 order. The matter was disposed by directing payment within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent Society to deposit an amount of Rs 4,94,106 with interest at 6% per annum from 19.05.2011 within two weeks.

M/s J J Corporation versus Asset Reconstruction… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2026)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson M.A. No. 52/2023 (Direction)

¶2

And M.A. No. 832/2015 (Intervener)

¶3

¶4

(Misc. Appeal No. 52/2023-Disposed of)

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. J J Corporation & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶7

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr. Yogesh Deshpande, Advocate for Appellants. Ms. Priya Singh, i/b M/s. Apex Law Partners, Advocate for Respondent (ARCIL).

¶8

Mr. Sishav Singh, i/b Mr. Anand Sitap, Advocate for Intervener.

¶9

-: Order dated: 21/04/2026: -

¶10

The present Misc. Application No. 52/2023 has been filed seeking a direction that in view of the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by this Appellate Tribunal the Intervener Society be directed to deposit the corpus fund amount payable to Appellant No. 2 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum before the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal.

¶11

It is submitted by the Learned Counsel of the Appellants that the Appellants had filed a Misc. Appeal No. 44/2005 aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the DRT-III, Mumbai on the grounds mentioned in the Appeal and the same Misc. Appeal was allowed vide judgement dated 02.06.2014 subject to deposit of 25% of the claim amount within four weeks and cost of ₹5,000/- towards the Respondent royalty.

¶12

¶13

The Learned Counsel for Appellant would further submit that the Respondent Unity Complex Co-op. Housing Society in this M.A. No. 52/2023 was directed by the Learned Predecessor of DRAT, Mumbai on 19.05.2011 to deposit the Appellant No.2 share in the corpus fund with the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal within 15 days of the receipt of the fund and directed that the said deposit be kept with State Bank of India for 13 months to be renewed from time to time. He would further submit that the intervener has not complied with the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the DRAT, Mumbai. Therefore, the intervener be directed to deposit the amount of corpus fund of the Appellant No.2 with 12% interest per annum in the Registry, DRAT, Mumbai.

¶14

Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Intervener would submit that the Intervener has filed M.A. No. 832/2015 seeking permission to deposit the amount of corpus in compliance with the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by this Appellate Tribunal.

¶15

It is an admitted fact that in compliance of the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the Learned Predecessor has not been complied with by the intervener. Had the intervener complied with the order by depositing the corpus with the Registry, DRAT, Mumbai within 15 days from 19.05.2011 it would have accrued interest.

¶16

In view of the above and considering M.A. No. 52/2023 this Appellate Tribunal directs the Respondent Society to deposit an amount of ₹4,94,106/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum calculated from the date of the order dated 19.05.2011 passed by this

¶17

¶18

Appellate Tribunal. The said amount shall be deposited with the Registry of this Appellate Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today.

¶19

Accordingly, M.A. No. 52/2023 stands disposed of.

¶20

All pending I.As if any stand dismissed.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

psa-21

¶23

M/s J J Corporation v. Asset Reconstruction Company(India) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s J J Corporation v. Asset Reconstruction Company(India) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus The Official Liquidator, High Court Gujarat acting as Official Liquidator of Mahendra Mills Ltd.

Suraj Biotech Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus State Bank of India

M/s. Hotel Sahyadri versus Nagar Urban Co. Operative Bank

State Bank of India versus Manoj Boj Choubey

Jaikishan Maniklal Fafat versus Manager State Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Mrs. Ashwini Dattatraya Phalke