Partly allowed

M/S Abhinav Furniture v. Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRAT7 Dec 2022IA/628/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against SARFAESI measures, the DRAT granted interim stay subject to a pre-deposit. The court directed the appellants to pay 50% of the outstanding amount as a pre-deposit in two installments over four weeks. Failure to comply would lead to dismissal of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Stay of proceedings on deposit of Rs 12,00,000 in two installments within four weeks.

M/S Abhinav Furniture versus Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 628/2022 (WoD) In Appeal on Dairy No. 1167/2022

¶2

Between

¶3

M/s. Abhinav Furniture & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

The Authorised Officer, Sadhana Sahakari Bank …Respondent/s Mr. Rajesh Thakkar, Advocate for Appellant.

¶5

D.N. Dani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶6

-: Order dated: 07/12/2022:-

¶7

The Appellants are the Applicants in S.A. No. 205/2018 on the files of D.R.T., Nagpur seeking a challenge to the SARFAESI measures initiated by the Respondent Bank.

¶8

The Appellants had undertaken to deposit certain amounts before the D.R.T. The Appellants could not deposit the entire amount as a result of which no interim orders were granted to the Appellants.

¶9

Hence, they are in appeal. To entertain the appeal, it is incumbent upon the Appellants to deposit the amount in accordance with the second proviso to Sec. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent Bank has appeared and filed a reply to the waiver application stating that as of date, there is an outstanding balance of ₹ 28,47,000/- due from the Appellants and therefore the Appellants

¶10

¶11

would have to deposit 50% of that amount.

¶12

Heard the Counsel appearing for both sides. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that their business was adversely affected due to the pandemic and moreover the Appellants are also suffering from physical elements and incurred heavy expenses on account of medical treatment. It is further submitted that the Appellants have been earnestly attempting to pay out the debt and amounts have been paid regularly towards the debt, which indicates that they are genuine and not recalcitrant debtors.

¶13

After having heard both sides, I find that the Appellants may be directed to pay a sum of ₹ 12,00,000/- as pre-deposit in two equal instalments. The first instalment of ₹ 6,00,000/- shall be payable within four weeks, on or before 04.01.2023 and the second instalment of ₹ 6,00,000/- shall be paid within two weeks, on or before 18.01.2023. Therefore, failure to deposit the amount within the stipulated time shall entail the appeal being dismissed and the copy of the appeal memorandum shall be furnished to the counsel appearing for the Respondent so as to enable him to file a reply to the appeal.

¶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 amount, there shall be a stay of further proceedings with regard to the property.

¶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

The reply, if any shall be filed within four weeks.

¶20

Post on 05.01.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the 1^st instalment.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

rm-34

¶23

M/S Abhinav Furniture v. Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Abhinav Furniture v. Sadhana Sahakari Bank 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

Similar cases

Harvestdeal Securities Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited versus International Hometex Ltd. & Ors.

Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd. versus M/S Maruti Dal Udyog

Mahesh Damu Khare versus Bank of Baroda and others

Amrut Tower Co-Op Hsg Soc.Ltd versus Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited and Ors.

M/S Abhinav Furniture versus Sadhana Sahakari Bank Ltd.