Disposed

Prakash Balkrushna Parekh v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

DRAT19 Sept 2022IA/436/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the DRT's dismissal of a delay condonation application, the tribunal fixed a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act as a condition for entertaining the appeal, staying proceedings pending payment.

What did the court decide?

Directs deposit of Rs. 10 Lakhs as pre-deposit; upon deposit, all SARFAESI proceedings are stayed.

Prakash Balkrushna Parekh versus Equitas Small Finance Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 436/2022 (WoD)

¶3

In Appeal on Diary No. 89/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Mr Prakash Balkrushna Parekh … Appellant/s

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. & Anr. …Respondent/s Mr Rajesh A. Bogle, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr R.L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 19/09/2022:-

¶9

This is an Appeal filed under Sec. 18(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short) challenging the order of the D.R.T., Nagpur in M.A. No. 120/2019 for condoning the delay in filing the Securitization Application under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act. There was a delay of 83 days which was sought to be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The various reasons stated in the application were not to the satisfaction of the Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Nagpur and hence, the application for condoning the delay was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2022. Aggrieved by that, the Appellant is before this Tribunal.

¶10

The application has been filed by the Appellant as I.A. No. 436/2022 for keeping the mandatory payment to be made under the second proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to the minimum by invoking the discretion of the Tribunal under the third proviso to

¶11

¶12

Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Appellant states that he has a good case on merits for the delay in filing the Securitization Application to be condoned, but Ld. P.O. has not considered those reasons in the proper perspective and hence dismissed the application without going into the sufficiency of the reasons furnished.

¶13

This being an application for waiver of deposit, I am not delving deep into the merits of the contentions raised in the application for condonation of delay, and also the Appeal.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has filed a reply stating that as of the date of filing of the Appeal, the balance due stood at ₹24,31,218/- and there are no reasons for reducing the amount and that the Appellant may be directed to pay 50% of the aforesaid amount for entertaining the Appeal.

¶15

It is admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that consequent to issuance the notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, some payment has been made by the Appellant which indicates that he has been earnestly attempting to repay the loan but could not do so for reasons beyond his control. And therefore, he approached the D.R.T. at the eleventh hour when the physical possession of the property was intended to be taken.

¶16

Considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the Appellant is directed to deposit a sum of ₹10 Lakhs as pre-deposit under the second proviso to Sec.18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act on or before 10.10.2022. Failing with the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Post on 11.10.2022 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶23

Sd/Chairperson

¶24

mks-10

¶25

Prakash Balkrushna Parekh v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Balkrushna Parekh v. Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

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

Axis Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus Messr Jay Textiles and Ors.

Authorised Officer Karad Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited and Anr. versus M/S Laxmi Drycleaners and 2 Ors.

Axis Bank and Anr. versus Ms Radhakrishna Textiles and Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Cfm Asset Reconstruction Pvt.Ltd. versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Mst.Pavitra Pradeep Walvekar versus Bank of India & Ors.