Disposed

Mr Gangadharan v. The Authorised Officer,M/S.Asset Reconstruction Co.Ltd

DRAT12 Sept 2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for waiver of statutory deposit for entertaining an appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the Appellate Tribunal rejected the appellant's claims of illness and partial payment. It ordered a mandatory 50% deposit of the original claim amount.

What did the court decide?

Ordered appellant to deposit 50% of the 13(2) notice amount (Rs.41,06,667/-) within 15 days; failing this, the appeal stands rejected.

Mr Gangadharan versus The Authorised Officer,M/S.Asset… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

IA 243/2022 In A.IR:142/2022

¶3

Gangadharan V/S A.O.,Arcil

¶4

12/09/2022

¶5

Counter of respondent filed.

¶6

This application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act.

¶7

Advocate for appellant submitted that originally amount was borrowed from Shriram Housing Finance and according to appellant, a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs was paid to said Shriram Housing Finance after availing the loan. It is further submitted that after debt was assigned to present respondent, a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- was paid to present respondent. It is further submitted that appellant is suffering from paralytic attack and neurological disorders for the past several years and admitted in Hospital for treatment and not yet recovered from the said ailment and considering these aspects, statutory deposit may be reduced to 25%.

¶8

Advocate for respondent submitted that Section 13(2) notice was issued in the year 2017 i.e., on 24.7.2017 and subsequent to 13(2) notice, no amount was paid and that appellant has not produced any material for reducing the statutory deposit.

¶9

I have perused material papers. It is not in dispute that amount claimed in 13(2) notice is Rs.82,13,333/- as on 19.7.2017. Though appellant contended that he has paid Rs.2.75 lakhs to present respondent, same is not supported by any material and other side denied the same, contending that no payment was made after 13(2) notice.

¶10

For entertaining appeal as per Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, amount claimed by secured creditor or amount determined by DRT, whichever is less, has to be taken into consideration. Admittedly, in this case, there is no determination of amount by DRT. Therefore, only amount claimed by secured creditor has to be taken into consideration. According to 13(2) notice, claim of secured creditor is Rs.82,13,333/-. For entertaining appeal, appellant has to deposit 50% of this amount, as appellant failed to make out any grounds for reducing statutory deposit.

¶11

For these reasons, appellant shall deposit 50% of 13(2) notice amount, which comes to Rs.41,06,667/- within 15 days from today i.e., on or before 26.9.2022, failing which, appeal stands rejected.

¶12

On making such deposit, Registrar shall invest the same in a nationalized bank for a reasonable period and renew it periodically, till further orders are passed.

¶13

Post the matter on 27.9.2022 for compliance of deposit.

¶14

Sd/Chairperson

Mr Gangadharan v. The Authorised Officer,M/S.Asset Reconstruction Co.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Gangadharan v. The Authorised Officer,M/S.Asset Reconstruction 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

A.O.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. versus Dr.Prathibha Sharan

Ashok Wood Works versus Indian Overseas Bank

Ashok Wood Works versus Indian Overseas Bank

Mr a Darwin versus Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd.

South Indian Bank versus Mr K Saravanan

Smt M Subathra versus State Bank of India