Partly allowed

Mrs Sheela w/o Sunil Kurrewar and Anr. v. Home First Finance Company India Ltd.

DRAT5 Aug 2022IA/357/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench of the DRTA absorbed the appellant''s objection regarding defective service of notices. It allowed the appeal on file upon acceptance of a 50% payment towards the pre-deposit requirement and directed a reply to be filed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was taken on file; the Appellants were not dispossessed until further orders; the reply was to be filed within four weeks.

Mrs Sheela w/o Sunil Kurrewar and Anr. versus Home First… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 357/2022 (WoD)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 691/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Mrs Sheela w/o Sunil Kurrewar & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. Home First Finance Co. India Ltd. 3 Ors. … Respondent/s Mr Meghnath N. Navlani, Advocate for Appellants.

¶5

Mr Alok Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶6

-: Order dated: 05/08/2022:-

¶7

I.A. No. 357/2022 is an application for waiver of pre-deposit filed u/s 18 (1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). The Appellants have challenged the Sarfaesi measures right from the Demand Notice issued u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act which, according to them has not been served upon them. They also deny having received any notice about the consequent measures taken thereafter. Hence, they are challenging the entire Sarfaesi measures in their entirety.

¶8

The learned counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 who are the secured creditors submit that the subject property has already been sold, the Sale Certificate has been issued, but the possession is yet to be handed over. The amount as shown in the auction notice is Rs.34,03,292/- and the learned counsel for the Appellants is producing a Demand Draft of Rs.17,02,000/- drawn in the name of the Registrar of this Tribunal and submits that the same would be

¶9

¶10

sufficient to take care of 50% amount which is shown in the Sale Notice issued under Rule 8 (6) of the SARFAESI Rules.

¶11

Under the circumstances, the Appellants have complied with the mandatory provision of pre-deposit for entertaining their Appeal. The same 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.

¶12

The Appeal filed is on Diary No. 691/2022 in which some defects regarding the service of notice have been raise as objections by the Registry. The Appellants have produced proof of service by way Track Consignment Report from the website of the Postal Authorities and it is seen that the parties have been served with notice. The Appeal shall, therefore, be taken on file if there are no other defects.

¶13

The Respondents are directed to file a reply to the regular Appeal within four weeks and get ready for a hearing.

¶14

The Appellants shall not be dispossessed from the suit property and the Respondents Nos.3 and 4 who are the auction purchases shall not create any third party interest in the suit property till further orders.

¶15

Post on 22.09.2022 for reply/hearing.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

¶17

dpj-11

¶18

Mrs Sheela w/o Sunil Kurrewar and Anr. v. Home First Finance Company India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Sheela w/o Sunil Kurrewar and Anr. v. Home First Finance Company India Ltd.

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

Similar cases

Bhavna Pundalikrao Gawali versus State Bank of India

Bhavna Sugar Private Limited versus State Bank of India

Narendra Thakker versus Canara Bank Limited

Sukumar Nandlal Shah versus Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.

Sukumar Nandlal Shah versus Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.

Sukumar Nandlal Shah versus Indian Overseas Bank and Ors.