Partly allowed

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane v. State Bank of India

DRAT29 Aug 2022MISC APPEAL/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants an ad interim stay on proceedings in Appeal No. 2 of 2021 pending the depositor's appearance. It notes that without complying with the mandatory 50% deposit requirement under Sec. 30A of the RDB Act, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hearing is adjourned to 19.09.2022.

What did the court decide?

Ad interim stay granted on the operation of the impugned order and all proceedings in Appeal No. 2 of 2021 on the file of DRT, Aurangabad.

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane versus State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 108/2022

¶2

Between

¶3

Mr. UmeshArunDhamane … Appellant/s V/s.

¶4

State Bank of India & Anr. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. I. Nashikwala, i/b Ms. Pallavi Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶6

Mr. Dileep S Paranjpe, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 Bank.

¶7

-: Order dated: 29/08/2022:-

¶8

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed on 29.08.2022 by the Appellant seeking urgent relief.

¶9

The Appeal is directed against the order of the Ld. P.O. in I.A. No. 978/2022 in Appeal No. 02/2021 on the file of D.R.T., Aurangabad. The aforesaid I.A. No. 978/2022 was filed by Auction Purchaser Respondent No. 2 in that proceeding who is Appellant herein, alleging that the Appeal No. 02 /2021 filed by the borrower challenging the order of Recovery Officer is not maintainable until the mandatory provision of Sec. 30A of the RDB Act is complied with.

¶10

The Ld. P.O. has relegated the question of maintainability to be heard along with the Appeal.

¶11

The reading of Sec. 30A of the RDB Act would indicate that it is akin to Sec. 21 of the RDB Act concerning Appeals before DRAT. It is a condition precedent to deposit 50% of the amount before entertaining the Appeal. Hence, the Ld. P.O. has not directed the

¶12

¶13

mks-33

¶14

payment of 50% of the amount due. Without complying with the mandatory provision, the Appeal cannot be entertained. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant relied upon the latest decision of the Hon’ble High Court Bombay, bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 11618/2019 dated 12.08.2022 wherein it is held that the provision of Sec. 30 (A) of the RDB Act is mandatory and need to be complied with for entertaining the Appeal.

¶15

The prima facie, it appears that the impugned order cannot be sustained. However, notice has been issued to Respondent No. 2 borrower and he has not yet appeared. Therefore, there shall be an ad interim stay of the operation of the impugned order and all proceedings concerning the Appeal No. 2 of 2021 on the file of D.R.T. Aurangabad, till further order.

¶16

Await appearance of Respondent No. 2, post on 19.09.2022.

¶17

Sd/Chairperson

¶18

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Umesh Arun Dhamane v. State Bank of India

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

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd.

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi versus State Bank of India

Shri Vishnukumar S/o Rambilas Modi versus State Bank of India

Sachin Navin Sheregar & Anr. versus a.O., L & T Hsg. Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Gita Navnath Lambhade and Anr. versus A.O. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. & Others

Indusind Bank Ltd. versus Sales Tax Officer & Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Miraj Recyclers Pvt. Ltd.

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. &amp;ndash; Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi versus State Bank of India

Shri Vishnukumar S/o Rambilas Modi versus State Bank of India

Sachin Navin Sheregar & Anr. versus a.O., L & T Hsg. Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Gita Navnath Lambhade and Anr. versus A.O. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. & Others

Indusind Bank Ltd. versus Sales Tax Officer & Ors.

M/s Natraj Sortex, through Its Prop. – Shri Natwar S/O Vishnukumar Modi versus State Bank of India