Partly allowed

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

DRAT29 Sept 2022IA/457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRAT allowed an appellant's appeal against the vacation of a stay on SARFAESI measures. The appellant admitted default on a payment schedule and the Tribunal directed payment of ₹12 Lakhs in two installments as a condition for the stay. Failing compliance, the appeal would face dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Stay of SARFAESI proceedings maintained on condition of depositing ₹6 Lakhs by 20.10.2022 and ₹6 Lakhs by 10.11.2022.

Sayyad Zameer Sayyad Sailani and Ors. versus Pusad Urban… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 457/2022 (WoD)

¶3

In Appeal on Diary No.442/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Sayyad Zameer Sayyad Sailani & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

The Pusad Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd & Anr. …Respondent/s Mr Radhe H. Agarwal, Advocate for Appellants. Mr R. K. Thakkar, Advocate for Respondent.

¶7

-: Order dated: 29/09/2022:-

¶8

The Appellants are in Appeal impugning the order in I.A. No. 591/2022 dated 10.05.2022 in S.A. No. 149/2022 on the files of D.R.T., Nagpur. The Appellants had sought a stay of the Sarfaesi measures and for that, they had allegedly filed a pursis (exhibit-8) undertaking to pay certain amounts in installments to the Bank. The Ld. Presiding Officer allowed the status quo to be maintained on condition that the payment would be made as per the admitted schedule. The Appellants could not however stick to the schedule and the payments defaulted in consequence of which the stay stood vacated. Aggrieved by that, the Appellants have come up with an Appeal.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has filed a reply stating that as of the date of Appeal the outstanding amount

¶10

¶11

of ₹37,58,693/-. The Appellants have to pay 50% of the amount as per the first proviso to Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

The Appellants plea that the financial strain and also points to the defect in the notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and subsequent to the Sarfaesi measures. The Ld. Counsel also submits that ₹ 9 Lakhs has been paid subsequent to the issuance of the Demand Notice to which the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that it has been accounted for. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the calculation of the interest is not proper and that an exorbitant amount has been accounted for which needs to be scrutinized. At this stage of hearing the application for waiver of deposit, I am not going to delve deep into the correctness of the interest due. The amount due as of date is as mentioned above and considering the financial strain and effort taken by the Appellants to pay the amount, I direct that the Appellants pay a sum of ₹12 Lakhs in two equal installments within three weeks each. The first installment of ₹6 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 20.10.2022, and the second installment of ₹6 Lakhs shall be deposited on or before 10.11.2022. Failing which, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶13

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

¶14

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai,

¶15

¶16

mks-2

¶17

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

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Nitin Rajendra Dhandore versus Punjab National Bank

Mrs Kanchanmala Raju Joshi versus Gif Housing Finance Ltd.

Klt Automotive and Tubular Products Limited versus Phoenix Arc Private Limited