Karnataka High Court
Hmg Industries Limited vs Bank Of Bahrain & Kuwait Bsc on 18 December, 2014
Bench: Chief Justice, R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
PRFESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.D.H. WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
WRIT PETITION No.58776/2014 (GM-DRT)
BETWEEN:
HMG INDUSTRIES LIMITED
A company incorporated under the
Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,
Having its registered office at
C-21/6, TTC Industrial Area,
Pawne Village, MIDC area,
New Mumbai-400 703
Represented by its Director
Mr.Edgar J. Kamath ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.S.S. Ramdas, Senior Counsel for
Sri.Kamalacharan.S.R.)
AND:
BANK OF BAHRAIN & KUWAIT BSC,
A Banking Corporation incorporated in the
State of Bahrain by an Amri Decree of March 1971
And having its registered office at 43,
Government Avenue, Manama, Bahrain,
And amongst others a branch at
Jolly Maker Chambers II, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400 021,
Represented by its General Manager & CEO
Sri.V. Sankaran. ... RESPONDENT
2
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for
records in MA.No.192/2010 before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, and set aside the order
dated 10.10.2014(Annexure-U) passed on
I.A.No.1017/12 and to issue a writ in the nature of
certiorari or other writ and quash all further
proceedings in O.A.No.79/2008 before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore.
This writ petition coming on for orders this day,
Chief Justice made the following:-
ORDER
D.H.WAGHELA, CJ(Oral)
1. The petitioner has, in substance, called into question order dated 10.10.2014 of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai.
2. The petitioner had filed M.A.No.192/2010 with I.A.No.1017/2012 for waiver of the pre-deposit as required under the provisions of Section 21 of The Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short "RDDBFI Act"). That interim application is partly allowed by the impugned order whereby, as against the total amount due of Rs.5,12,94,764/-, the petitioner is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.2,56,47,382/- into the Tribunal on or 3 before 31.12.2014. It is further stipulated in the impugned order that in the event the deposit is not made by the petitioner on or before 31.12.2014 the interim application shall stand automatically dismissed. The application of the petitioner for injunction i.e. I.A.No.481/2010 appears to have been kept pending awaiting compliance of the order as aforesaid.
3. In view of the express provisions of Section 21 of the RDDBFI Act, the appeal of the petitioner could not be entertained unless the appellant, petitioner herein, would deposit 75% of the amount of debt due from them as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the RDDBFI Act. The Appellate Tribunal however has discretion to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited for reasons to be recorded by it. There is no material on record to suggest that any material was placed before the Tribunal nor is any material placed before this Court to justify reduction in the amount required to be deposited which is already reduced to 50% by the impugned order. In the absence of any reasons worth being recorded to justify any further 4 reduction of the amount of pre-deposit, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. It was however submitted for the petitioner that in view of the last date fixed for deposit i.e., 31.12.2014, it may not be possible for the petitioner to deposit the amount in time. Therefore, reserving liberty to make an application to the DRAT for extension of time, the petition is not pressed for any further order.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed with the observation that if and when the petitioner makes an application for extension of time-limit for depositing the amount in terms of the impugned order, the Tribunal may consider such application and decide it in accordance with law.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-.