MSTC Limited, A Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Steel, New Delhi, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 vs Standard Chartered Bank, A body incorporated under thereafter Provisions of the Royal Charter, 1853 With its principal office at 1, Aldermanbury Square

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 126

NITIN JAMDAR, GAURI GODSE
MSTC Limited, A Government of India Enterprise under the Administrative Control of Ministry of Steel, New Delhi, Incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 – Appellant
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank, A body incorporated under thereafter Provisions of the Royal Charter, 1853 With its principal office at 1, Aldermanbury Square – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Joshi with Mr Amit Jajoo, Mr Phiroze Colabawalla, Ms. Richa Bhaati, Mr Rohit Gupta and Ms Anamika Singh, a/w Mr Darpan Bhatia, i/b Indus Law.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tushad Cooper a/w Ms. Drishti Doshi, Mr Kingshuk Baneerjee with Ms. Radhika Gupta, Mr Taha Mirza, Ms. Rashika Bajpai, i/b. Khaitan & Co.

JUDGMENT :

[Gauri Godse, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Taken up for final disposal.

2. This Petition is filed for challenging the order dated 9 November 2022 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (“DRAT”) at Mumbai in Interim Application No. 43 of 2021 in Miscellaneous Appeal (Dairy) No. 146 of 2021. By the said order application filed by the Petitioner for condonation of delay of 856 days in filing the appeal is rejected. Petitioner had filed the said appeal for challenging judgment and order dated 16 September 2017 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”), thereby granting decree on admission in favour of the Respondent.

3. Respondent had filed Original Application No. 43 of 2012 under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) before DRT, Mumbai for recovery of an amount of Rs.191,03,54,070.96 together with interest thereof. Petitioner had filed a written statement in the said application. Respondent had filed Interim Application No. 302 of 2017 under Rule 12(5) of the DRT (Procedure) Rules, 1993 praying for directing the Petitioner to pay the amount admitted by the Petitioner as being due and paya

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Bom) 126

Cases Referred (11)