The Appellate Tribunal halted the physical possession of secured property by the respondents as the appellant deposited Rs.16 lakrs (50% of the demand), setting the dispute for future hearing.
Directed the Court Receiver not to take physical possession of the premises till further orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Appeal No.192/2022 Arising out of S.A.No.13/2022 (DRT-II, Delhi)
Ritu Vs
PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
18.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present: Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Ld. Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Annirudh Sharma, Ld. Counsel for appellant.
Ms. Ridhi Pahuja along with Mr. Sumit Goswami, Ld. Counsels for respondent FI.
This matter has been taken up by me through Video Conferencing upon mentioning by the Ld. Sr. Advocate for the appellant in view of the urgency that respondent FI is going to take up the physical possession of the property in question today itself at 2:00 p.m.
I.A. No. 751/2022
This is an appeal filed against the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by Ld. DRT, Delhi whereby M.A. No. 2568/2022 in S.A. No. 13/2022 was dismissed on limitation.
The Ld. Counsel for appellant at the very outset states that though the appellant is a third party, but he is ready to settle the present claim with the respondent FI and is going to deposit a sum of Rs.16.00 lacs today itself before 2:00 p.m., which is more than 50% of the Section 13(2) notice.
The Ld. Counsel for respondent FI states that as per Section 13(2) notice the amount is Rs.35,62,441/-.
Ld Counsel for appellant on instruction states that after Section 13(2) notice, the appellant has deposited Rs.4,30,000/- with the respondent FI and now the balance stands reduced to Rs.31,32,441/-.
The Ld. Counsel for appellant further states that he is depositing 50% of the demanded amount with the respondent FI immediately through RTGS. He further states that he is ready to settle whole of the dispute with the respondent bank at the reasonable rate of interest.
-: 2 :-
In these circumstances, Ld. Counsel for respondent FI is requested to direct the Court Receiver not to take physical possession of the property in question which is due today @ 2:00 p.m.
Let matter be take up @ 2:30 p.m. today itself to know the status of deposit of 50% of the amount by the appellant.
(CHAIRPERSON)
At 2:30 p.m.
The matter has been taken up for clarification whether Rs.16.00 lacs have been deposited by the appellant or not.
The Ld. Counsel for appellant states that Rs.16.00 lacs has been credited to the bank through RTGS and message of the same also been placed on record and same has been sent to the Ld. Counsel for respondent FI.
Heard. In view of the fact that Rs.16 lacs stand deposited and appellant is ready to settle with the respondent, the Ld. Receiver will not take physical possession of the premises till further orders.
Let appellant and competent officer of the respondent FI appear before this Tribunal on the next date of hearing through video conferencing to make endevour for settling the matter amicably. In case no settlement is arrived at between the parties, the matter shall be heard on merit.
List this matter for 08.12.2022 for hearing.
(CHAIRPERSON)
N
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the attachment sale should be halted upon deposit of 50% of the demand before possession is taken?
Whether an appeal against dismissal of a stay application on limitation can be condoned on deposit of funds?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ritu
PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
Justice Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
7 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
