Partly allowed

Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal v. Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd.

DRAT19 Apr 2022IA/76/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal fixed a requirement for the appellants to deposit Rs.26 Lakhs in two tranches to secure the admission of their appeal against a stay rejection, noting the settlement had failed. Deposit of the first tranche within the stipulated time would stay proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit Rs.26 Lakhs in two tranches within 14 days; payment of first tranche will result in stay on SARFAESI proceedings.

Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal versus Fullerton India Home Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 76/2022 (WoD)

¶3

In Misc. Appeal No.23/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Shayam Pannalal Jaiswal & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶6

Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd. Through the Authorised Officer.

¶7

Mr. Anil D. Joshi, Advocate for Appellant. Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated : 19/04/2022 :-

¶9

Heard the Ld. Counsels for the Appellants and the Respondent on the application for waiver of deposit.

¶10

The total amount that was due is Rs.72,98,974.31. A settlement was arrived at between and Appellants agreed to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- against the aforesaid outstanding dues. It was agreed that the amount would be paid within a stipulated time. But he could pay only Rs. 20,00.000/- within that stipulated time and, therefore, the settlement fell out. There was no stay granted and the secured property was put for sale.

¶11

The learned counsel for Respondent submits that the sale has already taken place and it has been finalized and what remains is only handing over the possession of the property.

¶12

The Appellant has come up in this Appeal challenging rejection of application for stay by the D.R.T.-III, Mumbai, in I.A. No. 421/2022 which is the impugned order.

¶13

¶14

In view of the fact that the total amount due comes to more than Rs.72 Lakhs and the Appellant has only paid a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs and the balance would be Rs.52 Lakhs as the settlement has not been arrived at. Hence the challenge to the stay would require deposit upto 50% of the amount which is found to be due and, therefore, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.26 Lakhs in two tranches of 14 days each. The first tranche of Rs.13 Lakhs shall be paid within 14 days i.e. on or before 04.05.2022 and rest of the balance amount shall be paid within further 14 days i.e. on or before 17.05.2022. Default in payment of the first tranche would result in the Appeal being dismissed.

¶15

In case the first tranche is paid within the time stipulated, there shall be a stay on further proceedings with regard to the subject property under the SARFAESI Act.

¶16

The above amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Failure to deposit the above referred amount would result in an automatic dismissal of the Appeal.

¶17

As and when the said amounts are deposited, it shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalized bank, initially for a period of 13 months and thereafter it will be renewed periodically.

¶18

Post on 06.05.2022 for reporting compliance with regard to payment of the first tranche.

¶19

Sd/Chairperson

¶20

dpj/mks-6

¶21

Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal v. Fullerton India Home Finance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal v. Fullerton India Home Finance Co. 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

Forward Securities Ltd. & Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Shree Narmada Aluminium Industries Ltd. versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited & Ors.

Miss. Esha Keyur Shah & Ors. versus Bank of India & Ors.

M/S. Om Shrinath Sales Services versus Shriram Urban co-op Bank Limited

Amit Kanungo versus Omkara Asset Reconstructioin Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Shaukat Ali Sayyed & Ors. versus Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.