Allowed

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi v. State Bank of India

DRAT26 Aug 2022IA/350/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT allowed appeals from DRT orders. Directing appellants to deposit Rs. 44 lacs in four installments, it granted a stay on SARFAESI measures upon payment, relieving them of the mandatory 50% pre-deposit due to impecuniosity.

What did the court decide?

Stay of SARFAESI measures permitted subject to depositing Rs. 44 lacs in four installments within two-week gaps instead of mandatory 50% pre-deposit.

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Natwar… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 350/2022 (WoD)

¶3

¶4

Appeal on Diary No. 670/2022

¶5

Between

¶6

M/s. Natraj Sortexthrough its Proprietor Shri … Appellant/s Natwar S/o Vishnukumar Modi V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶7

And

¶8

I.A. No. 351/2022(WoD) IN

¶9

Appeal on Diary No. 667/2022

¶10

Between

¶11

M/s. Shanti Rice Mill, through its Proprietor Shri … Appellant/s Ndash. Shri. Vishnukumar S/o RamvilasModi V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s And

¶12

IA No. 352/2022 (WoD) IN

¶13

Appeal on Diary No. 673/2022

¶14

Between

¶15

Shri. Vishnukumar S/o RambilasModi … Appellant/s V/s. State Bank of India …Respondent/s

¶16

Mr. Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.

¶17

Mr. SaurabhUtangale, along with Mr. Shahzad M. Panday, i/b M/s. Utangale& Co., Advocate for Respondent.

¶18

¶19

-: Common Order dated: 26/08/2022:-

¶20

These are Appeals filed by Borrowers challenging the impugned order of D.R.T., Nagpur in S.A. Nos. 130/2021, 131/2021 & 132/2021. For entertaining the Appeals, it is mandatory for the Appellants to make a pre-deposit as contemplated under the second proviso in Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶21

The Appellants herein have raised several contentions regarding the insufficiency of the Sarfaesi measures invoked by the Respondent Bank. The merits of these contentions are to be decided by those S.As. Hence, I am not going to delve deep into those issues at present. The amount due in all three matters together is about �124 lacs. The Appellants contend that they had an issue with the Government regarding the supply of rice and because of that, they were under financial stress. They had also approached the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and obtained a stay regarding recovery by the Government.

¶22

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank vehemently opposes these applications and states that the Appellants have not made any ground to make out the special case of reduction of amount from the mandatory 50% as required under the third proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, it is submitted that there is no ground for invoking the third proviso of sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act for reducing the amount from the mandatory 50% of the amount due.

¶23

Consideringthe facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Appeals need not be disposed of at the threshold by not permitting the Appellants to make out the case. The impecuniosity of

¶24

¶25

the Appellants is one good of the reasons for getting the mandatory amount reduced from 50%. Taking into the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the Appellants to pay a sum of �44 lacs in four equal installments within a gap of two weeks each. The first instalment of �11 lacs shall be paid on or before 09.09.2022, the second installment of �11 lacs shall be paid on or before 23.09.2022, the third installment of �11 lacs shall be paid on or before 07.10.2022 and the fourth installment shall be paid on or before 21.10.2022. In case of default in payment of any of the abovereferred installments, the Appeals stand dismissed automatically.

¶26

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶27

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalized bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter it will be renewed periodically.

¶28

On deposit of the first instalment within a stipulated time, the Appellants shall be entitled to stay of all further Sarfaesi measures initiated against them by the Respondent.

¶29

With these observations, the I.As. are disposed of. The Respondent is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeals with an advance copy to the other side.

¶30

Post on 12.09.2022 for reporting compliance concerning payment of the first installment.

Sd/-

Chairperson

mks- 2, 3 & 4

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Deviprasad Steel and Services LLP versus Punjab National Bank

Dinesh Rikabchand Kothari versus State Bank of India

M/S.Morya Alucast Alloy (Partnership Farm) versus Bank of Baroda

M/s Shanti Rice Mill, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Vishnukumar S/O Ramvilas Modi versus State Bank of India

M/s Shanti Rice Mill, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Vishnukumar S/O Ramvilas Modi versus State Bank of India

M/s J J Corporation versus Asset Reconstruction Company(India) and Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Deviprasad Steel and Services LLP versus Punjab National Bank

Dinesh Rikabchand Kothari versus State Bank of India

M/S.Morya Alucast Alloy (Partnership Farm) versus Bank of Baroda

M/s Shanti Rice Mill, through Its Prop. &amp;ndash; Shri Vishnukumar S/O Ramvilas Modi versus State Bank of India

M/s Shanti Rice Mill, through Its Prop. &amp;ndash; Shri Vishnukumar S/O Ramvilas Modi versus State Bank of India

M/s J J Corporation versus Asset Reconstruction Company(India) and Ors.

M/s Shanti Rice Mill, through Its Prop. – Shri Vishnukumar S/O Ramvilas Modi versus State Bank of India

M/s Shanti Rice Mill, through Its Prop. – Shri Vishnukumar S/O Ramvilas Modi versus State Bank of India