ELV Vehicles growth rate is more than 50% on month to month basis and seems to be getting Good traction.
4 Likes
-: Order dated: 07/08/2023:-*
In the present case, the Appellant has been disputing the claim of the Respondent Bank on various grounds. The proceedings before the D.R.T. was questioned on the ground of territorial jurisdiction,
and also on the ground that the claim under the agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent could not be strictly construed as a ‘debt’ coming within the purview of the RDDB & FI Act.
The Appellant had challenged the claim of the Respondent before the civil court at Alipore. After having raised all these contentions in challenging the claim of the Respondent, it cannot be said that the mere mentioning of the claim in the balance sheets as liability would amount to an unambiguous, unequivocal or clear admission on the part of the Appellant. The notes accompanying the statements of account has to be read together with the description of the liability highlighted in the balance sheets. When the fact regarding the pendency of litigation before the D.R.T. and the Alipore court is
explained in the note attached to the balance sheets, it can definitely be not stated that the admission is unequivocal. There is no such admission in the pleadings of the Appellant. The mentioning of the
liability in the balance sheet with a rider that there is litigation pending between the Appellant and the Respondent would clarify that it is not a clear admission on the part of the Appellant. An admission can
always be explained by the party making it. In the present case, the explanation follows the purported admission. The explanation for the alleged admission in the balance sheets comes in the form of a notes attached to it. The intention for incorporating a provision to grant a decree on admission is to hasten the disposal of matters where is is no possibility of a contest arising in view of the admission. I n the instant case, the parties have been litigating for more than a decade now. Under the circumstances, I find that the Ld. Presiding Officer was not justified in admitting the recitals in the balance sheets as unequivocal admission of liability on the part of the Appellant to grant a decree on
admission. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained and requires to be set aside.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the impugned order of the D.R.T. dated 16/09/2017 is set aside and I.A. No. 302 of 2017 on the files of the D.R.T. is dismissed. The D.R.T. is directed to dispose of the O.A.(Original Application) as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the fact that it is more than a decade old.
DRAT Order Dtd 07.08.2023.pdf (571.4 KB)
Based on the above Judicial Pronouncement, it is highly probable that liability of Rs.221 crores in the books should be written back and considered as Income. Further the cash outflow of Rs.90 cr as an Appeal deposit should also be came back (cash inflow) to the company.
Eagerly waiting for the MSTC Management comments to the Shareholders 
Steel Scrap Potential and MSTC Role
A tonne of steel scrap can save 1.1 tonne of iron ore, 630 kilogram of coking coal and 55 kg of limestone. The use of steel scrap in both major manufacturing routes (BF-BOF & DRI-EAF/IF) can substantially lower the carbon emission in the process. The Steel Scrap Recycling Policy mentions the role of steel scraps in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 58 per cent.
In the Steel Scrap Recycling Policy 2019, the Ministry of Steel stated that as of 2019, the current supply of steel scrap is 25 million tonnes from the domestic market and 7 MT from imports. The aim of the scrap policy is to be able to harness this 7 MT from the domestic market itself to reduce dependence on imports. This would make India’s steel markets less vulnerable to global events in the sector.
The policy mentions opening 70 scrap processing centres with 300 collection and dismantling centres to fill up the gap of 7 MT. India also aims to generate steel production of about 255 MT by 2030 (according to the National Steel Policy 2017).
By that time, it is estimated that the demand for steel scrap may rise up to 70-80 MT. To meet this, India may require up to 700 scrap processing centres (shredders) that shall be fed by 2800-3000 collection and dismantling centres spread all over the country.
Potential of Steel scrap Market and MSTC share in the same (Estimation)
| Year | 2023 | 2030 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Steel Scrap | 32 | 80 | in Millions |
| Rate | ₹ 20,000 | ₹ 30,000 | Per MT |
| Scrap Value | ₹ 64,000 | ₹ 2,40,000 | in Crores |
| MSTC Market Share % | 10% | 25% | Estimated |
| MSTC Market Share | ₹ 6,080 | ₹ 60,000 | in Crores |
| MSTC Commission% | 3% | 3% | Estimated |
| MSTC Commission | ₹ 167 | ₹ 1,800 | in Crores |
5 Likes
I. Case Reference
Case Citation : (2023) ibclaw.in 45 DRAT
Case Name : MSTC Ltd. Vs. Standard Chartered Bank
Appeal No. : Appeal No. 10/2023
Judgment Date : 07-Aug-23
Court/Bench : DRAT Mumbai
Present for Appellant(s) :
Mr Gaurav Joshi Senior Counsel along with Mr Rohit Gupta, Ms
Anamika Singh and Ms Nashrin Shaikh, Advocate for Appellant
Present for Respondent(s) :
Mr Dinyar Madon Senior Counsel along with Mr Tushad Cooper
Senior Counsel, Ms Radhika Gupta and Ms Rashika Bajpai, i/b M/s
Khaitan & Co., Advocate for Respondent Bank
Chairperson : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
II. Brief about the decision
Facts of the case
The Appellant (MSTC Ltd.) impugns the order passed by the DRT-I, Mumbai directing the
Appellant/Defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 222,51,00,000/-to the Applicant Bank within 30
days exercising jurisdiction under Rule 12 clause (5) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1994 allegedly being the admitted liability shown in the balance sheet of
the Defendant company. The Appellant is aggrieved and hence the appeal.
The Respondent Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) is the Applicant in the aforesaid O.A. which
was filed for recovery of Rs. 191,03,54,070.96 allegedly due and payable by the Defendant as
on 06/03/2012 together with interest thereon at the rate of 12.25% per annum with effect
from 07/03/2012 till realisation.
The Respondent contended that in the Annual Report pertaining to the financial year
2011-2012, Defendant had admitted its liability towards the Applicant to the tune of Rs.
186,03,00,000/-and has further shown a sum of Rs. 5,05,00,000/-as contingent liability
pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. It is further alleged that in the annual report of
the Defendant company pertaining to the financial year 2012-2013, a sum of Rs.
203,70,00,000/- has been shown as its liability towards the Applicant and also mentions a
contingent liability of Rs. 13,85,00,000/. Similarly, the annual reports of the Defendant
company for the year 2013-2014 show the liability towards the Applicant as Rs.
245,74,00,000/-and the contingent liability is shown as Rs. 22,70,00,000/-. Likewise, the
annual reports of the Defendant company pertaining to the financial years 2014-2015 and
2015-2016 mention a sum of Rs. 222,51,00,000/-as liability the contention of the
Defendant/Appellant to this application for judgment on admission is that the application was
filed at a belated stage when the O.A. was due for a final hearing after adducing of evidence.
An interlocutory application of this nature at this stage of the proceedings is not maintainable
particularly when there is a serious dispute with regard to the facts and maintainability of the
O.A. itself. It is pointed out that there is, in fact, a categorical denial to the claim of the
Applicant SCB in the balance sheets sought to be relied upon for the purpose of admission.
Decision of the DRAT
For the statement in the balance sheet to be accepted as admission, it has to be clear,
unambiguous and unequivocal. Admission, undoubtedly is the best form of evidence but where
a party relies on the admission of the opposite side as evidence, it is essential that the whole
admission must be taken into consideration. Any explanation or rider to that admission cannot
be ignored.
In the present case, the Appellant had challenged the claim of the Respondent before the civil
court at Alipore. After having raised all these contentions in challenging the claim of the
Respondent, it cannot be said that the mere mentioning of the claim in the balance sheets as
liability would amount to an unambiguous, unequivocal or clear admission on the part of the
Appellant. The notes accompanying the statements of account has to be read together with
the description of the liability highlighted in the balance sheets.
When the fact regarding the pendency of litigation before the D.R.T. and the Alipore court is
explained in the note attached to the balance sheets, it can definitely be not stated that the
admission is unequivocal. There is no such admission in the pleadings of the Appellant. The
mentioning of the liability in the balance sheet with a rider that there is litigation pending
between the Appellant and the Respondent would clarify that it is not a clear admission on
the part of the Appellant. An admission can always be explained by the party making it.
In the present case, the explanation follows the purported admission. The explanation for the
alleged admission in the balance sheets comes in the form of a notes attached to it. The
intention for incorporating a provision to grant a decree on admission is to hasten the disposal
of matters where is is no possibility of a contest arising in view of the admission. In the instant
case, the parties have been litigating for more than a decade now. Under the circumstances, I
find that the Ld. Presiding Officer was not justified in admitting the recitals in the balance
sheets as unequivocal admission of liability on the part of the Appellant to grant a decree on
admission. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be sustained and requires to be set aside.
Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in the impugned order of the D.R.T. dated 16/09/2017 is set
aside and I.A. No. 302 of 2017 on the files of the D.R.T. is dismissed. The D.R.T. is directed to
dispose of the O.A. as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the fact that it is more than a
decade old.(p17-18)
1 Like
Hi,
I think we should consider the other liability items as well in the balance sheet as the company has to pay for them and they are significant:
Can you share the source of this image?
1 Like