Partly allowed

M/S Vishwanath Premanath v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT17 Oct 2022REGULAR APPEAL/115/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRAT allowed the interim application to invoke stabilization of SARFAESI measures. The Court ordered the appellant to deposit Rs. 40 Lakhs within eight weeks. Upon compliance, all further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are stayed pending the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Stayed further proceedings under SARFAESI Act contingent on deposit of Rs.40 Lakhs within eight weeks into term deposits.

M/S Vishwanath Premanath versus Punjab National Bank — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

M. A. No. 441/2012 (WoD) In Appeal No. 115/2012

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Vishwanath Premanath & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Punjab National Bank

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

Mr Charles D’Souza, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Amod D. Nair, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 17/10/2022:-

¶9

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has not come to prepare for a hearing despite the matter being of the year 2012.

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants. The learned for the Appellants has pointed out that the impugned order is erroneous and has not considered the objections raised regarding Sarfaesi measures taken by the Bank. It is pointed out that there are three notices issued under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The first notice was issued on 19.08.2004 which refers to the secured assets as Flat No. 503. The second notice issued under Sec. 13(2) on 06.09.2004 refers to Flat No. 404. It is also specifically stated that the second notice that the first notice is being recalled. Thereafter, the third notice issued on 10.05.2011 did not state anything regarding recalling the earlier two notices and the amount that is claimed

¶11

¶12

₹2,13,56,375/- without giving any breakup of the principal and interest portion and costs and therefore, it does not comply with the requirement under Sec. 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act submits the learned counsel for the Appellants.

¶13

The reply has been filed by the Respondent Bank but the amount due as on the date of Appeal has not been stated. The amount mentioned in the notice under Sec. 13(2) is as of March 2011 and the Appeal was filed in 2012 necessarily a portion of the amount would have been enhanced by the accumulation of interest. There is also no rate of interest mentioned in the notice dated 10.05.2011.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants also states that Rs.59 Lakhs has been paid subsequent to the receipt of the notice under 13(2) dated 10.05.2011. It is also submitted that the first Respondent firm is no longer functioning, and the second Appellant was a partner in the firm, who was 85 years old and has since passed away. The third Appellant is a housewife. Therefore, they are not in a pecuniary condition to pay the amount. They have got a very serious contention against the Sarfaesi measures which have been taken which makes out a prima facie case and therefore, it is prayed that the amount may be limited to 25% of the amount i.e. due invoking the 3^rd proviso under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶15

After having heard the submissions of both sides, I find that the impecunious situation of the Appellants has been made out in the application. There is also some serious contention raised

¶16

¶17

regarding the validity of the notice issued under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act which needs to be considered on merits.

¶18

Under the circumstances, the Appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs within eight weeks, on or before, 19.12.2022. Failing with the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶19

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶20

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.

¶21

On deposit of the payment within the stipulated time, all further proceedings to be initiated by Respondent under the SARFAESI Act shall stand stayed.

¶22

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.

¶23

Post on 20.12.2022 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶24

Sd/Chairperson

¶25

mks-11

¶26

M/S Vishwanath Premanath v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vishwanath Premanath v. Punjab National Bank

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

Chokshi Jayshree and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda (Vijaya Bank)

Shri Nivrutti Namdev Wagh versus Ravindra Sakharam Nagre

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited versus Vivaswan Industries and Ors.

Deepak Mhatre versus Bank of India

Indostar Capital Finance Limited versus Santos Uttam Sawane

Bank of Baroda versus State Bank of India and Ors.