Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2023) 05 DRAT CK 0010

M/s Pruthvi Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Axis Bank Ltd. & Anr

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 17 May 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 393 Of 2023 (Modification) In I.A. No. 323 Of 2022(WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 655 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 477 words

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

1.

This is an application filed by the Appellants to modify the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 26.07.2022 in I.A. No. 323 of 2022. The total amount outstanding as of date was assessed at roughly around ₹4 crores and considering the fact that the director who is representing the company is very ill and that the Appellants are undergoing financial strain, the mandatory pre-payment was fixed at ₹1.10 crores payable in two equal instalments of ₹55 lakhs each.

2.

The Appellants have filed this application for modification of the order stating that they are now not challenging the sale of the secured asset which was sold for ₹2,35,40,000/- and therefore, the amount payable as pre-deposit may be deducted and considered as already paid as the challenge is now is limited to the sale of the stock lying in the factory premises and hypothecated goods alone.

3.

The first Respondent Bank has filed objections to the modification application stating that the Appellants are not entitled to any concession and that on non-payment of the amount, the appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost. That apart, contentions are also raised regarding the disqualification of the directors of the company who had filed the present appeal, under Sec. 164 (2)(a), 167(2)(1) and 167(3) (3) of the Companies Act. Furthermore, it is also stated that the claim about the plant and machinery gets falsified as the plant and machinery were attached to the earth/land. Under the circumstances, the challenge to the sale of the plant, machinery and stock which are hypothecated with the Bank would amount to challenge of the entire sale. The Appellants also did not file any application for the removal of the stock and raw materials lying on the premises.

4.

After having heard both sides, I find that even if the sale is not challenged, the amount payable by the Appellants would come to around Rs.1.75 crores. The Appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹87,50,000/- as pre-deposit. Since sufficient time has already been granted to the Appellants to pay the pre-deposit, they are directed to deposit the aforesaid modified amount of pre-deposit within a period of two weeks, on or before 31.05.2023, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without any further reference of the Tribunal.

5.

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

6.

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

7.

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondents are at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

Post on 01.06.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.