SARFAESI : Where NPA amounts payable by petitioner to bank exceeded total deposit made by petitioner before Tribunal for hearing its appeal, application for refund of 25 per cent of deposit was to be rejected
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 572 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Kumar Aluminium Ltd.
v.
Asset Reconstruction Co. India Ltd.
SANJIV KHANNA AND V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
W.P. (C) NO. 3896 OF 2013
AUGUST 19, 2014
Section 18, read with section 13, of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Appellate Tribunal - Appeal to - Petitioner had availed credit facilities from bank - Accounts of petitioner and its associate firms had been declared as NPA (non-performing asset) by bank and notices were issued under section 13(2) - Receiver had been appointed by order of DRT in respect of mortgaged properties of petitioner - Petitioner made a pre-deposit for hearing of appeal - Petitioner's application seeking refund of 25 per cent of amount deposited was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal - Whether since NPA amount payable exceeded total deposits and reasons given by Tribunal for dismissing application of refund were appropriate, writ petition against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8,9 and 13]
■■■
[2014] 49 taxmann.com 572 (Delhi)
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Kumar Aluminium Ltd.
v.
Asset Reconstruction Co. India Ltd.
SANJIV KHANNA AND V. KAMESWAR RAO, JJ.
W.P. (C) NO. 3896 OF 2013
AUGUST 19, 2014
Section 18, read with section 13, of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Appellate Tribunal - Appeal to - Petitioner had availed credit facilities from bank - Accounts of petitioner and its associate firms had been declared as NPA (non-performing asset) by bank and notices were issued under section 13(2) - Receiver had been appointed by order of DRT in respect of mortgaged properties of petitioner - Petitioner made a pre-deposit for hearing of appeal - Petitioner's application seeking refund of 25 per cent of amount deposited was dismissed by Appellate Tribunal - Whether since NPA amount payable exceeded total deposits and reasons given by Tribunal for dismissing application of refund were appropriate, writ petition against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [Paras 8,9 and 13]
No comments:
Post a Comment