9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue notice. Counsels for the respondents no.1, 2, 4,5 and 6 accept notice. The other respondents are proforma respondents and in view of the order that we propose to pass, we do not consider it necessary to issue notice to them. We have heard learned Senior counsels for the parties represented, and proceed to dispose of the writ petition at this stage. 2. The petitioners have assailed the orders dated 27.2.2019 and 9.4.2019 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 311/2018 arising out of OA No.281/2018. By the first order dated 27.2.2019, the learned DRAT while dealing with I.A No.511/2018 preferred by the petitioners for grant of waiver to the appellants/petitioners from making pre-deposit of 50% of the debt determined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly and severally, will have to pay the Settlement Amount of Rs. 145 crores with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of settlement i.e 5th July, 2012 till realization on reducing balance after taking the amount paid i.e Rs. 152,81,07,159/- during the pendency of the present O.A, recoverable from the mortgaged property. As the applicant bank has realized a sum of Rs. 152,81,07,159/- by appropriating the compensation amount deposited by defendants no.7 & 8 on the principle of pari-passu charge defendant no.5 Yes Bank, assignee of the debt assigned by defendant no.4 EXIM Bank, will have to appropriate to recover its debt when the mortgaged property is sold in proportionate to the debts of the applicant bank and defendant no.5 Yes Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o deposit any amount as a pre-condition under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The submission of Mr. Nayyar is that the recovery certificate itself is in respect of Rs. 145 crores with interest. He has tendered in Court the certificate issued by the DRT to support his submission. He submits that merely on account of the fact that adjustment has been directed of the amount recovered by the respondent-bank of Rs. 152,81,07,159/-, it does not follow that the recovery certificate is for the balance amount, on the premise that the amount claimed by the respondent-bank is Rs. 221 crores (approximately 145 crores with interest at 9% per annum from 5th July 2012 onwards). In support of his submission, Mr. Nayyar has sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken note of by the DRT. He submits that the respondent-bank is also aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the DRT, and has preferred an appeal which is pending consideration. 8. Mr. Makkar, learned Senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the principal debtor, submits that the said respondent has also preferred a cross-appeal before the DRAT from the judgment of the DRT. 9. Having heard learned senior counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that learned DRAT has not viewed the aspect of pre-deposit correctly in the present case. The amount of Rs. Rs. 152,81,07,159/- was received by the respondent-bank during the pendency of the Original Application. The respondent-bank did not amend its Original Application to claim t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
