The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed an appeal impugning SARFAESI measures by directing the appellants to deposit ₹30 lakhs as pre-deposit in three instalments to obtain an interim stay on possession proceedings.
Interim stay of further SARFAESI measures including taking over possession upon deposit of ₹30 lakhs in three instalments.
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. 195/2023 (WoD) In
Appeal on Diary No. 460/2023 Between
Kailash Govindram Batra & Anr. … Appellant/s
V/s.
ICICI Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s
Mr Gaurang Kinkhabwala along with Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr Indrajeet Deshmukh, i/b M/s Vidhii Partners, Advocate for Respondent Bank.
-: Order dated: 21/11/2023:-
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 09.03.2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 58 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (D.R.T.) which in turn is a follow-up to the earlier order of the D.R.T. dated 03.02.2023 wherein the Appellant who are directed to deposit a sum of ₹15 lakhs for getting a stay with regard to taking over of the possession of the secured asset. The Appellants did deposit ₹10 lakhs within ten days as directed but failed to deposit the balance of ₹5 lakhs within the time stipulated by the D.R.T. It was further ordered by the D.R.T. that on failing to pay the amount as directed, a Commissioner would be appointed to take over possession of the secured asset. Accordingly, on 09.03.2023, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed to take possession of the secured asset. The Appellants have now received the notice from the Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property on the 23rd instant. The Appellants are aggrieved by the order of the D.R.T. and hence, in
1
appeal.
2
paid by the Appellants subsequent to initiation of the Sarfaesi measures by the Respondent bank.
| Numbers of Instalments | Payment on or before |
|---|---|
| 1stInstalment₹7,00,000/- | 12.12.2023 |
| 2ndInstalment₹7,00,000/- | 26.12.2023 |
| 3rdInstalment₹8,00,000/- | 09.01.2024 |
3
Post on 13.12.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the first instalment.
Sd/-
Chairperson
mks-08
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellants are entitled to an interim stay of Section 14 enforcement measures upon filing a securities appeal challenging the SARFAESI Act notice.
Whether the Principal Debts Recovery Tribunal can direct a higher pre-deposit than that specified in the impugned order to maintain the appeal against SARFAESI measures.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries vs. Prudent ARC Ltd.Relied on¶16
Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries vs. Prudent ARC Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12. · Who else cites this
Kailash Govindram Batra & Anr.
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
6 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
