Disposed

Sandip Patel and Anr. v. Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

DRAT3 Jan 2023IA/2/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered an interim application for waiver of pre-deposit against SARFAESI enforcement. The bench directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the dues in two instalments to obtain a stay, noting that the main securitisation application remains pending. Default would result in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit ₹30 lakhs in two instalments for stay of Sarfaesi measures; default leads to dismissal.

Sandip Patel and Anr. versus Authorized Officer Bajaj… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 02/2023 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 1416/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Sandip Patel … Appellant/s V/s. Authorized Officer, …Respondent/s Bajaj Finance Ltd.

¶5

Mr D. Chauhan along with K. Trivedi, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Vinay Deshpande along with Mr. Rupak Sawangikar, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for the Respondent.

¶6

-: Order dated: 03/01/2023:-

¶7

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by the Appellant seeking urgent relief. The Appellant impugns the interlocutory order of the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (D.R.T.), Ahmedabad in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 305/2022 dated 17.12.2022 declining to grant any stay to the Sarfaesi measures initiated by a first Respondent financial institution for recovery of the amount due from the Appellants under the provision of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short).

¶8

A demand notice was issued to the Appellant u/s 13 (2) on 22.11.2021 demanding a payment of ₹ 79,24,298/- together with interest. The financial institution further took steps for symbolic

¶9

¶10

possession u/s 13 (4) on 25.03.2023 and then proceeded to file an application u/s 14 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, and an order was passed to take over the physical possession of the property on 28.06.2022.

¶11

The Appellant thereafter approached the D.R.T. with an application under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Several grounds are raised regarding the insufficiency of the Sarfaesi measures including the classification of debts as Non-Performing Assets (NPA), insufficiency of the demand notice u/s 13 (2), noncompliance of Security Interest Rules and also the order passed of the u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

In the application for waiver of pre-deposit, the Appellants contend that their business suffered heavy losses due to the Pandemic. It is also stated that the Appellant is suffering severe financial stress and difficulty. And therefore, he is not able to comply with the mandatory provision of paying 50% of the amount due as contemplated under the second proviso u/s 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶13

The Respondent appeared and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that no prima facie case has been made out by the Appellant as is discussed in detail in the impugned order of the Presiding Officer. Apart from the vague pleading that the business suffered because of the pandemic and that he is in a financial crunch, there is no substantial evidence to substantiate the submission that the Appellant is suffering from any financial strain. Hence, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that there is no reason to reduce the amount from the mandatory

¶14

¶15

50% of the amount due. A sum of ₹ 79,24,298/- was demanded on 22.11.2021. Subsequent interest also would have accrued. The Appellant submits that he has paid a sum of ₹ 8.5 lakhs before the D.R.T. It is also submitted that an OTS proposal has been submitted to show his bonafide attempt to clear the dues.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that after adjusting the payment of ₹ 8.5 lakhs by the Appellant, as of date there are dues of ₹ 79,48,557/- and therefore, the said amount will have to be taken as a threshold for calculating the pre-deposit. Apart from the vague pleading in the application for waiver, there is nothing to record the show an Appellant is suffering from any financial strain. The Prima facie case relied upon by the Appellant does not appear satisfactory since there are no grounds challenging the Sarfaesi measures which could be sustained at least Prima facie. The S.A. is still pending and the challenge raised by the Appellant will have to be ultimately considered by the Presiding Officer while disposing of the S.A. therefore, I don’t intend to delve deep into the insufficiency of the Sarfaesi measures pleaded by the Appellants at this stage of waiver of pre-deposit.

¶17

The Appellant is, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs in two equal instalments. The first instalment of ₹15 lakhs shall be paid within three weeks on or before 24.01.2023, and the second instalment of ₹15 lakhs shall be paid within another three weeks on or before 14.02.2023. On payment of the first instalment, the Appellant shall be entitled to the stay of further Sarfaesi measures initiated by the first Respondent. defaulting of the payment of the

¶18

¶19

Pre-deposit shall entail in dismissal of the Appeal without any further reference.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Post on 25.01.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶24

Sd/Chairperson

¶25

psa-05

¶26

Sandip Patel and Anr. v. Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Patel and Anr. v. Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance 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

Bhanji s/o Bhoiraj Nisar versus Indian Bank

Ramnath Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Bhanji s/o Bhoiraj Nisar versus Allahabad bank

Canara Bank versus Woodman Venneers Pvt. Ltd.

naina D/o. Ashok Salve versus Aavas Financiers Ltd.

Sheela Sunil Kurrewar versus Home First Finance Company India Ltd.