Dismissed

M/S. Smith and Kenner Pharmaceauticals Private Limited v. Asset Reconstruction (India) Ltd. (Arcil)

DRT3 Jan 2025MA/75/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal I at Hyderabad dismissed an interlocutory application seeking suspension of a Recovery Certificate. The Tribunal held that since the applicants failed to obtain a stay from the Appellate Tribunal in their challenge to the underlying order, the present application was filed merely to delay proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Interlocutory Application MA 75/2004 is dismissed.

M/S. Smith and Kenner Pharmaceauticals Private Limited versus… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.I AT HYDERABAD DATED THrs rHE o3RD DAy oF, JANUARY, zo2s PRESENT: SRI. GUMMADI GOPICHAND HON'BLE PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

MA. NO. 75 0F 2024 IN

¶3

OA No. 243 OF 2OO3

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s. Smith and Kenner^{pharmaceauticals} Private Limited, H.No. 16-2-738/F/ 4, Asmangarh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. And others.

¶6

....Applicant/s

¶7

And

¶8

ARCIL, At: Office No.207, Bhuvana Towers, Beside Manju Towers, Above CMR Exclusive Panty, Secunderabad-500003. And another.

¶9

.... Respondent/s

¶10

DOCKET ORDER DT. 03.O1.2025.

¶11

This Interlocutory Application is filed by the Petitioners/defendants under Section 26Q)eP) of DRT Actr/w Section 22(h) of RDB Act, 2016 to suspend the Recovery certificate dt.16.o7.2024 in RC No.rsgl2024 in o.A.24312024 pending disposal of the petition seeking withdrawal of the Recovery certificate.

¶12

In the affidavit filed by the Petitioner No.3/defendant No.3, he averred that O.A.243l2OO3 is filed by the Applicant Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,51,46,4241- and the said O.A. was allowed with costs by this Tribunai on 28.02.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners filed appeal before the Honble DRAT, Kol Hon'ble DRAT was pleased to issue notice to the Responden Respondents appeared in the application filed for wai of the amount. In the meanwhile, the Petitioners 1.O8.2O24 from the Ld. Recovery Officer

¶13

JAl| 2025 ; 1 &:.:

¶14

of this Tribunal in RC.No.I58/2O24. Hence there is need for suspending the Recovery certificate dt.l6.OZ.2024 in RC.No. l1g/24.

¶15

This application is resisted by the 1st Respondent/Applicant Bank by filing counter and contended that the Petitioner sare chronic litigants and have been filing frivolous petitions without paying any monies to the Respondent No.l bank which has to recover huge public money. The petitioners have already preferred an appeal vide Dy.No.357l2O24 before the Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata but no stay was granted by the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata. Hence there is no bar on the part of the lstRespondent Bank to proceed with the Recovery certificate No.158/2O24, Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the I.A,

¶16

Heard both the Ld. Counsel and perused the materia-l brought on record.

¶17

Now the point for consideration is uhether the petitioners haue established any uVlid ground for suspension of Recouery certificate dt.16.07.2024 in RC No.158/2024 in O.A.243/2024 pend.ing disposal of the petition seeking withdraual of the Recouery certifi.cate?

¶18

As per the record, it is clear that O.A.243/2OO3 is filed by the 1st Respondent Bank herein and the said o.A. was allowed vide o.d., d,t.2g.o2.2o24. Challenging the said order, the Petitioners herein preferred appeal before the Hon'ble DRAT,Kolkata but couldnot get stay in the .ria ,ppeal. The Petitioners having failed to obtain stay in the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata, filedthe present application for suspension of Recovery Certificate. Once the petitioners Iiled appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in the O.A, it is only for the Appellate Tribunal to stay the recovery proceedings. So, there are no bonafides on the part of the Petitioners in filing the presJnt application and the same is fiied only to delay the recovery proceedings.

¶19

So, there are no merits in the M.A. and the present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

In the result, MA 75 /2004 is dismissed.

¶21

sd/ - Presiding Officer

¶22

O 3 JAN ?I?5

¶23

TRUE GOPY / Zfu-e, -ri?';f;g:'{'r'031'^/ f^bk -

M/S. Smith and Kenner Pharmaceauticals Private Limited v. Asset Reconstruction (India) Ltd. (Arcil)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Smith and Kenner Pharmaceauticals Private Limited v. Asset Reconstruction (India) Ltd. (Arcil)

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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

City Union Bank Limited versus M/s. Kpg Projects

State Bank of India versus Smt. Bollu Saritha

State Bank of India versus Smt. Radhika Sontineni

Canara Bank versus M/s. Laksheya Group

Union Bank of India versus Ms. Bachu Soujanya

M Ravikumar Reddy versus Canara Bank