Disposed

M/S. Sparsh and Ors. v. India Resugence Arc Pvt. Ltd.

DRAT27 Feb 2023IA/100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal issued an intermediary order requiring the appellant to make a pre-deposit of interest to be entertained. It allowed an interim stay against further enforcement of recovery measures until the first installment is paid.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellant to deposit interest as pre-deposit; granted interim stay against further SARFAESI measures pending payment of first installment.

M/S. Sparsh and Ors. versus India Resugence Arc Pvt. Ltd. — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 100/2023 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 158/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. Sparsh & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Authorised Officer, …Respondent/s Indian Resurgence ARC. Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

An Advocate for the Appellant is present.

¶7

Mr. Rajesh Nagori along with Ms. Shobha Chavan, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Respondent

¶8

-: Order dated: 27/02/2023:-

¶9

The Appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 in Securitization Application No. 501/2022 (S.A.) on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer found that there is no prima facie case for passing any interlocutory order in favour of the Appellant. Aggrieved by that, the Appellant is in an appeal. He has challenged the Sarfaesi measures starting from the notice issued u/s 13 (2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Security Interests Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short), and all subsequent measures.

¶10

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel across the Bar that the possession of the secured asset is scheduled to take place on 28.02.2023, and hence the urgency. According to the Respondent, the amount that is due from the Appellant including the interest is ₹

¶11

¶12

1.38 Crores and there are no grounds for invoking the discretionary provision under the 3^rd proviso to section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act to reduce the amount from the mandatory 50% which the Appellant is liable to pay. The Appellant has pleaded that he is under financial strain and therefore, the maximum indulgence will be shown.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the Appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 38 lakhs as pre-deposit for the purpose of the appeal being entertained. The Appellant is producing the Demand Draft of ₹ 7 lakhs today, and the balance amount of ₹ 31 lakhs shall be paid into two equal instalments of ₹ 15.50 lakhs each.

¶14

The 1^st instalment of ₹ 15.50 lakhs shall be payable within two weeks on or before 13.03.2023 and the 2^nd instalment of ₹ 15.50 shall be payable within three weeks therefrom, on or before 03.04.2023. There shall be an interim stay against further Sarfaesi measures, in view of the deposit of the Demand Draft today towards the predeposit till further order. In default of payment, the Appeal shall stand dismissed without any further reference to this Tribunal

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

¶18

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.

¶19

Post on 14.03.2023 for reporting compliance regarding payment of the 1^st instalment.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

psa-04

¶22

M/S. Sparsh and Ors. v. India Resugence Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sparsh and Ors. v. India Resugence Arc Pvt. 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

Icici Bank Ltd. versus Kulkarni Engineering Associates Ltd. & Ors.

Shree Tuljabhavani Sugar Private Ltd. versus Vaishnavi Sugar India Ltd. and Ors.

The Memon Co-op. Bank Ltd. versus Indian Bank

M/S Mission Industries, through Its Partner - Mr. Yogesh S/o Gajanan Bawankule and Anr. versus Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Mrs. Shilpa Goldie Sud & Anr. versus Bank of Maharashtra & Ors.

Ganpat G Khadtare versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.