Allowed

A U Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Mr Shirish Dattatray Gaikwad

DRAT19 May 2022MISC APPEAL/3/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate tribunal allowed an appeal filed by AU Small Finance Bank Ltd., setting aside a lower order that directed deposit of sale proceeds. The court held the lower authority erred in allowing the intervener statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act within the borrower's stay application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order directing deposit of sale proceeds set aside; appellant's appeal allowed.

A U Small Finance Bank Ltd. versus Mr Shirish Dattatray… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

Appeal No. 03/2020

¶3

Between

¶4

A.O., AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Mr. Shirish Dattatraya Gaikwad …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

-: Order dated :19/05/2022:-

¶8

The Respondent is ex-parte as he did not appear despite service of notice.

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.

¶10

Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.05.2019 in I.A. No. 695/2019 in S.A. No 180/2018 pending on the files of DRT, Pune. The aforesaid application was filed by borrower (Respondent herein) seeking an ad-interim order to stay the operation of sale of secured asset on 12.04.2019, and also sought to maintain status-quo with regard to the secured assets. Appellants, as well as financer were heard, and the interim relief sought for stay of the sale was disallowed by the Ld. Presiding Officer. However, in view of the submission made by Ld. Counsel appearing for the intervener who was not yet made a party in the proceeding, the Ld. Presiding Officer agreed to direct deposit of the sale proceeds in the Tribunal till inter-se claim for the amount

¶11

and property between intervener and Appellant was settled. Aggrieved by that, the financer is before this Tribunal.

¶12

It is pointed out that the intervener had earlier filed I.A. No. 444/2019 before D.R.T., Pune, seeking to stay the sale of the secured asset and also sought direction to deposit the sale proceeds in DRT, in case of auction has taken place.

¶13

After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the intervener, also borrower and Appellant herein, the Ld. Presiding Officer observed that the intervener cannot interfere in the S.A. which has been filed by the borrower. In case intervener has a grievance, his remedy is available under Sections 11 and 17 of the SARAFAESI Act. Without resorting to the substantial remedy available, the intervener cannot come in the S.A. which has been filed by borrower and seeks remedy against the secured assets as regards the financer, and dismissed the application giving liberty to seek appropriate relief u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that it was not proper on the part of the Ld. Presiding Officer to direct deposit of amount in the application filed by the borrower, on a request made by the Intervener.

¶15

After having gone through the orders, I am in agreement with Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant that it was not proper on the part of Ld. Presiding Officer to direct deposit of the sale proceeds in the Tribunal till the dispute between the

¶16

intervener and creditor is settled at a later point of time. There is no dispute between creditor and intervener existing in the S.A. 180/2018 which is pending before the Tribunal. In case, the intervener has any claim, he has to raise his claim under Sec. 11 and 17 of SARFAESI Act. I find that it was not proper on the part of the Ld. Presiding Officer in allowing remedy sought by the intervener in the S.A. filed by the borrower.

¶17

Hence, the impugned order is to be set aside. Appeal is allowed and the impugned order in I.A. No. 695/2019 in S.A. No. 180/2018 is set aside as regards the relief granted to the intervener in directing deposit of the amount. The other reliefs granted to the borrower in I.A. No. 695/2019 shall be sustained.

¶18

mks-9

A U Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Mr Shirish Dattatray Gaikwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A U Small Finance Bank Ltd. v. Mr Shirish Dattatray Gaikwad

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

Vijaya Bank versus Sterlite Industries India Limited

Pratik Kachru Repale versus State Bank of India

Sangli Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. versus Shri Rohidas Haribhau More

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd. versus Hotchand Kishinchand Talreja

Pravara Renewable Energy Ltd. versus Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Spectra Motors Limited versus Icici Bank Ltd.