Partly allowed

Mahesh Deodutta Gupta v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

DRAT3 Mar 2023IA/140/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the application for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 2 crores, with Rs. 50 lakhs to be paid on the scheduled possession date. Possession handing over was scheduled, subject to deposit compliance.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 2 crores as pre-deposit. Possession handing over scheduled for 06.03.2023 subject to deposit of Rs. 50 lakrs on that date.

Mahesh Deodutta Gupta versus Reliance Asset Reconstruction… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 140/2023(WoD) In

¶2

Misc. Appeal on Dairy No. 282/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Shri Mahesh S/o Deodutta Gupta and Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Reliance Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr. Gaurang Kinkhabwala, along with Ms. Gaurangi Patil and Mr. Parth Mehta, i/b M/s. GP & Associates, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Nagori, along with Mr. Vinay Deshpande, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

¶6

Mr. Bhanu Bhushan Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.

¶7

-: Order dated: 03/03/2023:-

¶8

This appeal is filed challenging the order in I.A. No. 91/2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 31/2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-Nagpur (D.R.T. )wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interlocutory reliefs preventing the handing over possession of the secured property to the auction purchaser in a sale that had taken place long ago. The sale certificate is also issued on 21.10.2022. The only action that remains to be done is the handing over the possession to the auction purchaser. The Appellant had earlier filed an appeal as Misc. Appeal No. 150/2022 in which the amount outstanding as date of filing of that appeal was determined and he was directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 1.95 crores

¶9

¶10

u/s. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. That amount is still lying in the deposit. The amount that is due from the Appellant is more than ₹ 5.28 crores approximately. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant undertakes to deposit a sum of ₹ 2 crores afresh within a week.

¶11

Under the circumstances the application for waiver of the deposit is disposed of with a direction to the Appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 2 crores towards pre-deposit u/s. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act within a period of one week. The handing over of possession is scheduled to be held on 06.03.2023. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant undertakes to deposit a sum of ₹ 50,00,000/- on 06.03.2023 and the balance amount shall be deposited within a week therefrom. In case the amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- is deposited on Monday the handing over of possession to the auction purchaser shall be deferred for two weeks. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

¶16

Post on 06.03.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the

payment.

Sd/-

Chairperson

rm-29

Mahesh Deodutta Gupta v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Deodutta Gupta v. Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Limited

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

Similar cases

Central Bank of India versus Prashant Shinde

Shri Roshan Eknath Raikar versus Bank of India & Ors.

Shri Yeshwant Shriniwas Pulgam versus State Bank of India

Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. versus Ms Maredia Enterprises

Ms Shree Pharma Engineering Works and Ors. versus Indian Bank

Mr Bipin Singh and Anr. versus Orix Leasing and Financial Service India Ltd.