Disposed

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

DRAT26 Sept 2022IA/451/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants a stay on SARFAESI proceedings contingent upon the deposit of Rs. 1 Crore as security. The Court allowed the Appellants to pay the balance amount in two instalments over six weeks due to financial stress.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted subject to deposit of Rs. 1 Crore in instalments; default results in dismissal of appeal.

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others versus Tata… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 451/2022 (WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 880/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. Tata Capital Finance Service Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Ajinkay J. Gargey, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Nagori along with Mr. R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 26/09/2022:-

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed the Appellants seeking urgent relief.

¶10

This is an application for waiver of deposit under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Appellants have come on the Appeal challenging the order of Ld. Presiding Officer, D.R.T, Nagpur, in I.A. No.1575/2022 in S.A. No. 26/2022, dated 01.09.2022, wherein the Appellants had sought a stay of the Sarfaesi measures, and the Ld. Presiding Officer was pleased to grant a stay on the condition of a deposit of ₹1 Crore. The Appellants deposited ₹80 Lakhs, and for payment of the balance of ₹20 Lakhs, sought an extension of time. The extension of time sought was declined by the Ld. Presiding Officer. Hence, the Appellants are aggrieved and before this Tribunal in appeal. In the meanwhile, the Appellants had also approached the

¶11

¶12

Hon’ble High Court, Bombay and the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to approach this Tribunal by way of Appeal.

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank seeks time to file a reply, but counsel submits that as of date, after the credit of ₹80 Lakhs has been given to the Appellant in accordance with the order of D.R.T., There is still a balance due more than ₹4 Crores due. The Appellants state that they have been making an earnest attempt to pay the amount. The Appellants plea that they have financial stress and the business is not running properly and that is the reason that they are not able to deposit the amount and therefore, seeks indulgence of this Tribunal.

¶14

Considering the financial stress the Appellants have undergone, I am inclined to invoke the third proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act and direct them to deposit a total amount of ₹1 Crore as a pre- deposit. The Appellants shall be deposited ₹10 Lakhs today by way of Demand Draft and Ld. Counsel undertakes to deposit the amount of ₹10 Lakhs by way of Demand Draft on or before 28.09.2022 and the balance of the amount of ₹80 Lakhs shall be deposited within a period of six weeks in two equal instalments. The first instalment of ₹40 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 19.10.2022 and the second instalment of ₹40 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 09.11.2022. Failing with the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Post on 29.09.2022 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

mks-10

¶23

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services 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

Punjab National Bank versus State Bank of India & Ors.

Central Bank of India versus Symer Tin Private Limited & Ors.

Smt. Geetaben Nareshbhai Shah versus Mashreq Bank Limited & Ors.

Shri Ashwin Jitendra Vora versus Bank of India & Ors.

Santosh Mali & Anr. versus Deevan Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

Shri Ashwin Jitendra Vora versus Bank of India & Ors.