Disposed

Sheela Sunil Kurrewar v. Home First Finance Company India Ltd.

DRAT3 Jan 2023IA/1/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application seeking waiver of pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal allowed appellants to withdraw an earlier deposit, re-deposit it in the present appeal for ten days, and granted stay of SARFAESI measures upon fresh compliance, while directing auction purchasers not to create third-party interests.

What did the court decide?

liberty to withdraw earlier deposit, re-deposit in this appeal for ten days, stay of further SARFAESI measures upon payment.

Sheela Sunil Kurrewar versus Home First Finance Company India… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 01/2023 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 1447/2022

¶3

Between

¶4

Sheela Sunil Kurrewar & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Home First Finance Company India Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr Meghnath Navlani, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

Mr Alok Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 & 2.

¶7

Ms. Durga Soni, i/b M/s. RADLAW Associates, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 & 4.

¶8

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

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe filed by Appellant seeking urgent relief. This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit filed by the Appellants under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short), impugning the order of dismissal of Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 247/2022 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal (D.R.T.), Nagpur dated 15.12.2022. The Appellants had challenged the Sarfaesi measures starting from the issuance of the demand notice u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, which according to the Appellants were not served upon them. The subsequent measures were also challenged. However, the vide impugned judgment of the Ld. Presiding Officer D.R.T., Nagpur dismissed the S.A. holding that challenging the Sarfaesi measures is

¶10

¶11

not reasonable and cannot be accepted.

¶12

The Appellants have deposited the 50% of the amount due as contemplated under the 2nd proviso to section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that in the earlier Misc. Appeal No.120/2022, file impugning an interlocutory order in the S.A., they had deposited ₹ 17,02,000/- and it is still lying in the deposit in this Tribunal. That Misc. Appeal was disposed of with a direction to the D.R.T. to dispose of the S.A. as expeditiously as possible and accordingly, the S.A. was disposed of. Now the Appellants are in appeal challenging the order of dismissal of the S.A. He, therefore, prays that the amount in deposit made in earlier Misc. Appeal may be considered as a deposit in this Appeal as well.

¶13

The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent agrees on the amount which is deposited to be considered as a pre-deposit in this Appeal but submits that it is a deposit made in another Appeal and therefore, cannot be technically considered as a deposit made in this Appeal for the purpose of compliance of section 18 (1). I am in total agreement with the Ld. Counsel. The Appellants are, therefore, given the liberty to withdraw the amount in deposit in Misc. Appeal No.120/2022, For which, he may file an application and the amount shall be re-deposited in this Appeal afresh.

¶14

It is also submitted that the property is already been sold and the auction purchasers who are Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, are already on the party array. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are directed not create any third-party interest in the property during the pendency of

¶15

¶16

this Appeal.

¶17

On the payment of the aforesaid amount, the Appellants would be entitled to a stay of the further Sarfaesi measures.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Post on 18.01.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

psa-04

¶23

Sheela Sunil Kurrewar v. Home First Finance Company India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Sunil Kurrewar v. Home First Finance Company India 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

All orders in this case

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.

Sandip Patel and Anr. versus Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance Limited