9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords, there was no segregation of the amount claimed against the four accounts. Further, we note, the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order has given three reasons for dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner for refund. The cumulative effect of all three reasons having weighed with the Tribunal to dismiss the said applications keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case, more particularly, when liability against two Accounts has been decided against associate companies/firms of the petitioner, we are of the view that this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution would not like to interfere with the impugned order. -Decided against the appellant. - W.P.(C) 3896/2013 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2014 - MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA AND MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. M.Dutta, Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocates For The Respondent : Ms.Pratiti Rungta, Mr.Sumit Pargal, Advocates V.KAMESWAR RAO, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 04, 2013 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (Appellate Tribunal, in short) in Misc. Appeal No. 39/2013 wherein, the applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of pre-deposit required under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining the appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has reduced the pre-deposit from 50% to 25% of ₹ 5,56,60,345/- to be deposited by way of FDRs in the name of the Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal. The statement made by the counsel for the petitioner reads as under: Mr. Dutta points out that the appellant/applicants had filed four separate applications (S.As) under section 17 of SARFAESI Act against the measures taken by the respondent bank qua the different loan accounts and the learned tribunal below by taking all those four S.As together, by a common order, which has been impugned in this appeal, has declined to grant the interim protection sought for by the applicants. He submits that the total amount of ₹ 5,56,60,345/- was claimed by the respondent bank through four different demand notices issued under Section 13(2) of the said act to the applicants. He further submits that the applicant companies, which belong to one family, are ready to deposit 25% of the claimed amount. He also submits that the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the petitioner. Hence, the pre-deposit which was made, was not required to be made at all. He would state that there is no authority of law for the Appellate Tribunal to deny the refund and the reasoning given by the Appellate Tribunal is unsustainable in law in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported as; (1) (2004) 4 SCC 311 Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. and related matters; (2) AIR 2009 Gujarat 98 Babu Ganesh Singh Deepnarayan Vs. Union of India and Anr.; (3) 1996 (82) ELT 177 (Bombay) Suvidhe Ltd. Vs. Union of India; and (4) 2002 (144) ELT 56 (Bombay) Nelco Limited V. Union of India in support of his contention. 7. Ms. Pratiti Rungta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would support the order of the Appellate Tribunal. According to her, the four appeals were filed by the petitioner and associate companies, the number being SA Nos. 525, 526, 527 and 528 of 2012. All accounts, with respect to the said companies, had been declared as NPA. She would state that in pursuance to the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal that the order of deposit was reduced from 50% ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also noted, but, for a concession, the Appellate Tribunal could have maintained as pre-deposit 50% of the claimed amount. Even if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted to exclude the account with regard to the petitioner company herein, we note, even against the three accounts, the total liability is of ₹ 3,48,44073/- and 50% of the said amount would still be ₹ 1,74,22036.50/- which is also much more than the amount deposited by the petitioner against the four accounts in terms of order of the Appellate Tribunal. Even assuming, that, out of the three accounts, one account has not been held as NPA, then also, the total liability in the other two accounts is ₹ 2,23,42,600/-, which amount is much more than the amount of ₹ 1,39,25000/- deposited by the petitioners pursuant to order of the Appellate Tribunal dated December 27, 2012. It is also a fact that the SAs filed against the other three accounts, were properly maintainable appeals unlike SA No. 527/2012. In other words, the submission of the petitioner is to divide/bifurcate the deposit, such bifurcation and division cannot and should not be permitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying upon the judgment of this Court in R.V. Saxena Vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 Delhi 96, upheld the proviso, which requires pre-deposit of the debt amount as a condition precedent for hearing of the appeal. The validity was upheld. In para 6, the High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Statute enabling the secured creditor to adjust or appropriate the amount deposited by the borrower to prefer an appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act but this would not help the petitioner, since in this case, the Appellate Tribunal reduced the pre-deposit from 50% to 25% on the total amount claimed by the respondent No. 1 on the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner and the fact that two Accounts have been held to be NPA in accordance with the RBI Guidelines and claim of the respondent No. 1 having been established, reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court would be of no relevance. 12. Similar are the other two judgments in Suvidhe Ltd. and Nelco Ltd. s cases (supra) relating to the provisions of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 and would not be really relevant while dealing with a case under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
