Allowed

Meissa Al Tamur v. Nkgsb Co-Op Bank Ltd.

DRAT27 Mar 2023IA/181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this IA under an appeal against an order directing possession handover, the DRAT denied waiver of pre-deposit due to lack of financial strain proof but granted a stay on dispossession conditional on depositing ₹1 Crore in four instalments. Failure to pay results in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit ₹1 Crore in four instalments for stay on dispossession; failure results in dismissal of appeal.

Meissa Al Tamur versus Nkgsb Co-Op Bank 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. 181/2023 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 07/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

M/s. AL Tamur & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. NKGSB Co-Op. Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr. Sandeep Rankhambe & Ms. Anita Sonawane, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, i/b M/s. M & S Ventures, Advocate for Respondent.

¶7

-: Order dated: 27/03/2023:-

¶8

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by the Appellants seeking urgent relief.

¶9

The Appellants is in the Appeal challenging the order dated 05.12.2022 in Securitization Application (S.A.)No. 210/2022 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (D.R.T.) wherein the Appellant did not get an extension of time to pay the amount which was directed to be paid by the Ld. Presiding Officer vide order dated 12.09.2022.

¶10

The Appellants offers to pay the sum of 10.20 lakhs which was not acceptable to the Respondent Bank and hence, the Appellants were directed to hand over peaceful possession of the property by the D.R.T. on 12.09.2022. Aggrieved by that, the Appellants are in appeal.

¶11

¶12

The Appellants pray that they may be granted further time to pay the amount. it is also stated that they have earnestly attempted to make the payments and have consequent to the demand notice paid a sum of ₹ 69,49,502.80/- and the amount outstanding on the date of demand notice was ₹ 2,43,41,200/- as on 07.01.2021 and it is after that the amount of ₹ 69 lakhs has been paid and interest also has accrued thereafter. According to the Appellants, the outstanding amount after making the payment is only ₹ 1,90,33,298/- but the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the outstanding amount of ₹ 2,51,86,943.53.

¶13

The Appellants in this application for waiver of pre-deposit u/s 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act have not brought about any grounds where prima facie the Appeal would be sustainable. There is also no plea of any financial strain. The Appellants have also not produced any income tax returns to show that they are under financial strain.

¶14

Under the circumstances, the Appellants are not entitled to any indulgences exercising discretion under the 3^rd proviso to section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. 6. However, because the Appellants have made an earnest attempt to pay a sum of ₹ 69.49 lakhs consequent to the demand notice, this Tribunal directs the Appellants to deposit a sum of ₹ 1 Crores as pre-deposit before this Tribunal for entertaining the Appeal. The amount shall be paid in four equal instalments. The 1^st instalment of ₹ 25 lakhs shall be paid within three weeks, on or before 17.04.2023. The 2^nd instalment of ₹ 25 lakhs shall be paid within two weeks therefrom, on or before 01.05.2023. The 3^rd and 4^th

¶15

¶16

instalments also shall be paid within a gap of two weeks each. Failure to pay the amount shall result in dismissal of the Appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶17

On the payment of the amount the Appellant shall be entitled to stay from being dispossessed of the secured assets.

¶18

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

¶19

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalized bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

¶20

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondent Bank is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶21

Post on 18.04.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the payment

¶22

of the 1st instalment.

¶23

psa-11

¶24

Sd/Chairperson

¶25

Meissa Al Tamur v. Nkgsb Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meissa Al Tamur v. Nkgsb Co-Op Bank 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

Similar cases

Mr Mahadev Hari Sarmalkar versus Icici Bank Limited

Ranvar Alloys Private Limited and Ors. versus Xander Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/s. Manohar Automobils & Ors. versus Idbi Bank Ltd.

Bhavana Rohit Shah and Anr. versus Icici Bank Limited

Ramchandra Khandu Shinde versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Suchita Samir Dabri versus Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited