Appeal against an order declining relief to stall asset possession and reduce pre-deposit to 25%. Tribunal found no prima facie case but granted temporary extension on possession and mandated a reduced deposit of 20 lakhs.
Pre-deposit reduced to Rs. 20 lakhs to be paid in instalments; taking over of possession extended 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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 110/2023 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 249/2023
Between
Ramadevi R. Prajapati … Appellant/s V/s. IDFC First Bank Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s
Mr. Minesh K. Shah, Advocate for Appellant. Mr R.L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by the Appellants seeking urgent relief.
The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 03.02.2023 in I.A. No. 375/2023 in Securitisation Application (SA)No. 45/2020 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Vashi, Mumbai (D.R.T.) wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interlocutory order stalling the taking over of possession of the secured assets for the reason that the Applicant/Appellant has not made out any prima facie case, and also for the reason the Applicant has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and therefore, is not entitled to interlocutory relief of injunction.
1
knowledge whatsoever regarding the mortgaging of her property to any financial institution and was surprised to notice action being taken against her property by the 1st Respondent for recovery of the debt taken by her and her husband.
2
u/s 13 (4) and the order of the District Magistrate in 2019 the Appellant did not move the D.R.T. The S.A. was filed in the year 2020 after a long time.
3
has been sleeping over her rights despite being aware of the Sarfaesi measures which have been taken by the 1st Respondent as early as in 2019. The fact that she did not receive the notice u/s 13 (2) does not appear since the note the address which has been sent by the Registered past as is claimed to be her address in the S.A. as also in the Appeal Memorandum.
4
Post on 28.02.2023 for reporting compliance of payment.
Sd/Chairperson
psa-09
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to exercise jurisdiction to reduce the mandatory pre-deposit amount from 50% to 25% under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the Appellant has established a prima facie case or clean hands to warrant interlocutory relief stalling possession.
Whether the service of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was valid despite the Appellant's claim of non-receipt.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramadevi R. Prajapati
IDFC First Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
