Dismissed

Mrs Kanchanmala Raju Joshi v. Gif Housing Finance Ltd.

DRAT29 Sept 2022IA/456/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellants appealed a DR.T. order that vacated a stay on SARFAESI recovery measures due to default in payment. The DRAT directed deposit of Rs. 15 Lakhs in three installments; the stay on further SARFAESI proceedings resumes upon compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed Appellants to deposit Rs. 15 Lakhs in three installments by 10/11/2022; stay on SARFAESI proceedings pending deposit.

Mrs Kanchanmala Raju Joshi versus Gif Housing Finance Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 456/2022 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No.905/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Mrs Kanchanmala w/o Raju Joshi & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. GIC Housing Finance Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. Radhe H. Agarwal, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocate for Respondent.

¶6

The order dated 30.08.2022 in I.A. No. 1355/2022 in Securitization Application No. 94/2020 on the files of D.R.T., Nagpur is impugned. It is seen from the impugned order that the Appellants had offered to settle the entire amount due to the Respondent in three months and a pursis (exhibit-10) was filed with a schedule for the payment. The Respondent also filed a pursis at exhibit-11 stating that as of the date the outstanding amount was ₹50,19,105/- and ₹21,24,003 was the overdue amount against the Appellants. In terms of the pursis filed, the Ld. Presiding Officer was pleased to direct the status quo to be maintained till the next date of hearing but it was also made clear that in case of default of payment as per the schedule mentioned in the pursis at exhibit-10 the stay would automatically stand vacated without any reference to the Tribunal. The Appellants could not pay the subsequent dues as per the schedule and hence, the stay now stands vacated. Aggrieved by

¶7

that order, the Appellants are before this Tribunal. The Appellants would contend that the pursis was filed only in accordance with the insistence made by the Ld. Presiding Officer and was not voluntarily.

¶8

The Respondent has filed a reply in which it is stated that as of 27.09.2022 the outstanding dues from the Appellants is ₹49,02,828/. The Appellants have pleaded that their business has come to a close, and because of the financial strain, they are not able to pay the amount due to the Respondent. It is also stated that they have a good prima facie case in the S.A. challenging the Sarfaesi measures. All the measures starting from the Demand Notice issued under Sec. 13(2) are challenged.

¶9

Heard both sides. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the Appellants did make certain payments event subsequent to receipt of the Demand Notice under Sec. 13(2) on 02.11.2018. Even as per the undertaking given before the D.R.T. they have attempted to make certain payments but could not comply with the entire schedule of payment because of financial strain.

¶10

Under the circumstances, I direct the Appellants to deposit a sum of ₹15 Lakhs in three equal installments within three weeks each. The first installment of ₹5 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 20.10.2022, the second installment of ₹5 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 10.11.2022 and the third installment of ₹5 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 01.12.2022. Failing which, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

Post on 21.10.2022 for reporting compliance concerning the payment of the first installment.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

mks-1

¶19

Mrs Kanchanmala Raju Joshi v. Gif Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Kanchanmala Raju Joshi v. Gif Housing 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

Ranjit B Parekh S/o deceased Babubhai D. Parekh versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd.

Kusum M Agarwal versus Canara Bank

Citi Bank versus Ami Vishal Pandya

Sayyad Zameer Sayyad Sailani and Ors. versus Pusad Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited and Anr.

Nitin Rajendra Dhandore versus Punjab National Bank

Klt Automotive and Tubular Products Limited versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited