Disposed

Gajjala Jayamma v. Canara Bank and Anr.

DRAT2 May 2022REGULAR APPEAL/250/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata allowed an interim application by the appellant-borrower to reduce the pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal found the appellant to be bona fide and directed her to deposit Rs.10.00 lac within six weeks to meet a total pre-deposit of Rs.41.86 lac.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs.10.00 lac as pre-deposit within six weeks.

Gajjala Jayamma versus Canara Bank and Anr. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2022)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

¶2

(Appeal No. 250 of 2018)

¶3

(Arising out of S.A. 1398 of 2017 in DRT-2, Hyderabad)

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON

¶5

02.05.2022 Gajjala Jayamma … Appellant -vsCanara Bank … Respondent Mr. Nemani Srinivas, Learned Counsel for Appellant Mr. Debasish Chakrabarti with Ms. Sharmistha Pal, Learned Counsel for Respondent

¶6

Mr. Surajit Chakraborty, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2/Auction Purchaser

¶7

THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL :

¶8

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Appellant borrower, namely, Gajjala Jayamma, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30^th October, 2018, passed by Learned DRT, Hyderabad in S.A. 1398 of 2017 whereby Tribunal below has dismissed the SARFAESI Application.

¶9

In the present appeal, Appellant has filed an application, being I.A. 409 of 2018, under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for waiver of 50% of the amount as pre deposit.

¶10

On 5^th March, 2019 this Appellate Tribunal passed an order to register the appeal by holding that the borrower has deposited Rs.31.86 lac and bank has also realised Rs.79.00 lac and odd from the auction sale of the property which is lying with the Bank, therefore, more than the demanded amount having been recovered, Appellant/Borrower is not required to tender further pre-deposit and thus the waiver application was allowed.

¶11

Respondent No. 2, Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, being aggrieved by the order dated 5^th March, 2019, passed by this Appellate Tribunal, preferred a writ petition, being W.P. 18673 of 2019, before the Hon’ble High Court of the State of Telengana at Hyderabad; which was decided by the Division Bench on the 29^th of November, 2021

¶12

¶13

wherein the order dated 5^th March, 2019 was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh hearing of the pre deposit application.

¶14

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶15

It is an admitted fact that the Appellant is borrower and out of the debt amount of Rs.1.06 crore Rs.38.86 lac was deposited by Appellant as pre-deposit. It is also not in dispute that the property was sold in an auction wherein Respondent No. 2 was the highest bidder and has deposited Rs.79.00 lac.

¶16

Now it is to be seen whether the benefit of pre deposit can be extended in favour of the Appellant or not. Proviso to Section 18 (1) provides the borrower has to deposit 50% of the amount of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the DRT, however, Appellate Tribunal may reduce the amount to not less than 25% of the debt; referred to in the second proviso.

¶17

Now it is to be seen whether the amount can be reduced to from 50% to 25%.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that Appellant has already deposited 31.86 lac which shows her bona fide. It is further submitted that although financial hardship has not been mentioned in the petition, Appellant is ready and willing to deposit Rs.10.00 lac as pre-deposit.

¶19

Learned Counsel for Respondents oppose to such prayer and submitted that there is no sufficient ground for reducing 50% of pre deposit.

¶20

Having heard the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find Appellant to be bona fide. The record shows that Appellant has already deposited Rs.31.86 lac and further prepared to deposit Rs.10.00 lac within the time granted by this Appellate Tribunal. I find reasons to reduce pre-deposit from 50% to an amount of Rs.41.86 lac.

¶21

Accordingly, Appellant is directed to deposit Rs.10.00 lac as pre-deposit within a

¶22

period of six weeks from today.

¶23

Respondents shall file opposition within two weeks with advance copy to the Appellant; rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶24

List the matter on 25^th July, 2022.

¶25

(Anil Kumar Srivastava,J) Chairperson

¶26

Dated: 2^nd May, 2022 05/ac

Gajjala Jayamma v. Canara Bank and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajjala Jayamma v. Canara Bank and Anr.

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

State Bank of India versus Partha Sarathi Mallick

Sri Farooq Ali versus Asrec India Ltd. and Ors.

State Bank Of India and Ors. versus Ms Meena Fashion and Ors.

G Gopala Rao versus the Authorised Officer Union Bank of India

Smt Indira Srinivas Mawle versus State Bank of India

Ghosh Brothers Automobiles versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.