Dismissed

Dilip Damodar Patil and Ors. v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

DRAT23 Sept 2022IA/425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT considered an application for waiver of the deposit required to stay SARFAESI action. Noting the appellants' financial distress, the Court exercised its discretion under Section 18(1) to grant a stay contingent upon depositing Rs. 1.30 cores in two installments.

What did the court decide?

Stay on SARFAESI proceedings granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1.30 crores in two installments.

Dilip Damodar Patil and Ors. versus Hinduja… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 425/2022 (WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.828/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Dilip Damodar Patil & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Rajesh Nagori, i/b Mr Herbert A. Naronha, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, i/b M/s. M & S Legal, Advocate for Respondent.

¶7

-: Order dated: 23/09/2022:-

¶8

The Appellant is before this Tribunal challenging the order of D.R.T.-II, Mumbai in I.A. No. 1756/2022 in S.A. No. 237/2022 wherein Ld. Presiding Officer refused to grant the interim relief of stay with regards to the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent Finance Institution. The present application is for waiver of deposit filed by the Appellants under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶9

The Respondent has filed a reply to the application wherein it is stated that the outstanding dues as of the date of filing the Appeal are ₹5,30,47,116/-. The amount which was claimed in the notice dated 15.02.2019 under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was ₹2,92,34,047/. The Appellants state that they are senior citizens and they are running at loss in their business, and Income Tax Returns have been filed to

¶10

¶11

indicate loss of income and the impecunious situation in which the Appellants are.

¶12

The Appellants have raised various contentions in the Securitisation Application stating from the insufficiency of notice under Sec. 13(2) and all subsequent Sarfaesi measures taken by the Respondent. It is contended that the Appellants have a good case on merits.

¶13

After having heard both sides, I find that the Appellants can be given an opportunity to contest the Appeal on merits and therefore, considering the financial condition of the Appellants, indulgence is also shown by invoking the discretion of the Tribunal under the third proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act and Appellant are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹1.30 Cores within a period of six weeks in two equal installments. The first installment of ₹ 65 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 14.10.2022 and the second installment of ₹ 65 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 04.11.2022. Failing with the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

On deposit of the payment within the stipulated time, all further proceedings to be initiated by Respondent under the SARFAESI Act shall stand stayed.

¶18

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

¶19

Post on 17.10.2022 for reporting compliance concerning the payment of the first installement.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

mks-2

¶22

Dilip Damodar Patil and Ors. v. Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Damodar Patil and Ors. v. Hinduja Leyland Finance 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Nagpur Beghar Mitra Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. & Ors.

State Bank of India versus Mr C P Ravindranath Menon Liquidator, Bank of Karad(In Liquidator)

Bank of Baroda versus Shri Jayeshbhai Parsottamdas Patel and Ors.

Pratik Kachru Repale versus State Bank of India

Venkatesh Alied Solution Co. versus Bank of India

M/s. Dharmandan Textiles versus India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.