Disposed

Bhagyanagar Solvent Extraction Private Limited v. the Authorisied Officer

Madras HC21 Dec 2023WP/35876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2 crores to maintain status quo while the matter is pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, without deciding the pre-deposit application itself.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 2 crores by 30.12.2023 to maintain status quo pending DRTA hearing.

Bhagyanagar Solvent Extraction Private Limited Vs the… — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.12.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶8

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶9

Bhagyanagar Solent Extration Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, V.Naveen Corporate Office: No.9, Flat No.702 7^th Floor, Manju Block, Chitra Avenue Choolaimedu High Road Chennai – 600 094.

¶10

.. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The Authorized Officer Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) Government of India Enterprise Core 4A, East Court, 1^st Floor India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road New Delhi – 110 003.

¶13

Syed Fahad

¶14

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Rep. by its Registrar Sasthri Bhavan, Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006.

¶15

Respondents

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶19

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent to hear and dispose of the waiver petition, stay petition, and the appeal filed by the petitioner in A.I.R.No.1827 of 2023 challenging the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the DRT-I, Chennai in S.A.No.6 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

For the Petitioner : Mr.N.Ramakrishnan for M/s.ARK Law Associates

¶21

For the Respondents : Ms.Lilly Francis for M/s.King and Patridge for R1

¶22

Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag for R2

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶25

The petitioner has filed a securitisation application against the

¶26

sale of the plant and machinery. The plant and machinery was sold for Rs.4.75 cores [Rupees Four Crores Seventy Five Lakhs Only].

¶27

The Debts Recovery Tribunal held the sale proceedings to be

¶28

legal and valid, however, permitted the petitioner to redeem the movables upon payment of the entire sale consideration, i.e., Rs.4.75

¶29

Page 2 of 7

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶32

crores [Rupees Four Crores Seventy Five Lakhs Only] within fifteen days. The petitioner thereafter sought extension of time. The petitioner was granted with extension of fifteen more days, however, the petitioner failed to pay the amount. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the waiver application is pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, but the same is not taken up for hearing.

¶33

We have heard Mr.N.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for M/s.ARK Law Associates for the petitioner, Ms.Lilly Francis, learned counsel appearing for M/s.King and Patridge for the first respondent and Mr.Ashwin Shanbhag, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶34

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal is seized with the matter, as such, it would be inappropriate to dilate on the merits of the matter. We would not like to preempt the decision of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶38

As the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal has to consider the matter on merits and in the interregnum, the position is required to be maintained till the matter is taken up for hearing by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, we pass the following order:

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall deposit Rs.2 crores on

¶40

or before 30.12.2023. Status quo as on today shall be maintained till 04.01.2024 on condition that the petitioner deposits Rs.2 crores as directed on or before 30.12.2023.

¶41

(ii) Failure to deposit the amount of Rs.2 crores on or before 30.12.2023 shall result in the axiomatic vacation of the status quo granted. If the amount is deposited as directed, then the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal shall consider the same as a part of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal. However, the order with regard to the pre-deposit shall be passed by the Presiding Officer, Debt

¶42

Page 4 of 7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶45

Recovery Appellate Tribunal. The amount directed to be deposited in the present matter may be adjusted towards the pre-deposit.

¶46

(iii) This would be only a part of the said

¶47

amount. We shall not be understood to have decided the application for pre-deposit.

¶48

(iv) The parties may appear before the Debt

¶49

Recovery Appellate Tribunal on 02.01.2024.

¶50

In light of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.35872 of 2023 is closed.

¶51

(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 21.12.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶52

drm

¶53

Page 5 of 7

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶56

¶57

The Authorized Officer Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (IREDA) Government of India Enterprise Core 4A, East Court, 1^st Floor India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road New Delhi – 110 003.

¶58

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Rep. by its Registrar Sasthri Bhavan, Haddows Road Chennai – 600 006.

¶59

Page 6 of 7

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

¶62

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

(drm)

W.P.No.35876 of 2023

21.12.2023

Page 7 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Bhagyanagar Solvent Extraction Private Limited v. the Authorisied Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagyanagar Solvent Extraction Private Limited v. the Authorisied Officer

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

P.D Sundaresan Vs the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption

D.S.Jayakrishnan Vs The Secretary to Government

M.S.Palanivel Vs the Chief Officer

Bhuvaneswari Nagar Vgp Selva Nagar Vs The Principal Secretary

B.Venkatesh Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Ganesan Vs the District Collector