Petitioners sought court permission to deposit a balance pre-deposit in DRAT proceedings. The High Court allowed the writ petition, permitting the full deposit despite a shortfall in the first instalment attributable to registry refusal.
Permission granted to deposit Rs.9 Crores with the Registrar of DRAT, Chennai.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P.No.26828 of 2017 and WMP No.28545 of 2017
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, permitting the petitioner to deposit the http://www.judis.nic.in amount of Rs.9,00,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Crores Only) in the account of AIR
2
No.183 of 2017 on the file DRAT at Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.U.Karunakaran For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Rajeev Gandhi for NVS Associates
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR , J)
Earlier, placing on record, the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, we permitted a sum of Rs.9 Crores being the balance predeposit amount, determined by the DRAT in Appln No.546 of 2017 in AIR No.183 of 2017, to be deposited in two equated monthly instalments, from
the date of receipt of the copy of the order, made in W.P.No.14221 of 2017
dated 19.07.2017.
2. According to the petitioner, copy of the abovesaid order was
received on 17.08.2017. Four weeks time fixed for making first deposit of Rs.4.5 Crores, fell due on 14.09.2017. Petitioners could take Demand Draft
for Rs.3,77,00,000/- only and that there was shortfall of Rs.73,00,000/-.
When AIR No.183 of 2017 was listed before DRAT, Chennai, explaining the
above, demand draft for a sum of Rs.3,77,00,000/- was produced, but the Registry of DRAT, refused to receive the same, without the permission from
this Court. Petitioners have also contended that for the balance amount of
the first instalment i.e. Rs.73,00,000/-, demand draft has been taken.
3
3. Petitioners have further contended that the 2nd instalment of
Rs.4.5 Crores has to be paid on or before 12.10.2017. For the abovesaid amount, a demand draft has been taken on 06.10.2017.
4. Contending inter alia that though, the petitioners have taken a demand draft for the entire pre-deposit of Rs.9 Crores, as ordered in W.P.No.14221 of 2017 dated 19.07.2017, which the Registrar of the Tribunal is refusing to accept, for the shortfall towards the 1st instalment, which fell due on 14.09.2017 and further contended that if the pre deposit is not accepted rights of the petitioners in appeal would be seriously prejudiced, petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus, permitting them to deposit the amount of Rs.9 Crores with the Registrar of DRAT, Chennai, in the account of AIR No.183 of 2017.
5. Mr.P.S.Rajeev Gandhi, learned counsel representing IDBI Bank,
Saidapet, Chennai, respondent herein has no objection for the permission being granted.
6. We have considered the averments made in the supporting material
and also place on record the submission of Mr.P.S.Rajeev Gandhi, learned
counsel for the respondent bank.
4
7. Though, there was a shortfall of Rs.73 Lakhs towards payment of
1st installment i.e. 14.09.17, considering the fact that the writ petitioners have taken Demand Drafts for the entire pre deposit of Rs.9 Crores, within the last date i.e. 12.10.2017, in the interest of justice, prayer sought for has to be ordered. Accordingly, we permit the petitioners to deposit Rs.9 Crores with the Registrar of DRAT, Chennai in AIR No.183 of 2017. Writ petition is
allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 8. Petitioners are permitted to file a memo in DRAT, Chennai stating
that prayer sought for has been ordered, permission has been granted and accordingly, deposit Rs.9 Crores.
(S.M.K., J.) (R.S.K., J.) Index: Yes/No. 13.10.2017 Internet: Yes
Note to office: Issue order copy immediately. ars
5
S.MANIKUMAR, J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
ars
W.P.No.26828 of 2017
and WMP No.28545 of 2017
13.10.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioners can be permitted to deposit the entire pre-deposit amount despite a shortfall in the first instalment due to registry refusal to accept partial payment.
M/s.Nandha Energy Limited
Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd.
Binny Limited
IDBI Bank Limited
S.MANIKUMAR
R.SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
