Partly allowed

M/S. Sameer Builders and Ors. v. Dcb Bank Limited

DRAT12 Apr 2023IA/222/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT, Mumbai, partially allowed an interim application. It declined a request for reduction of the debt to 25% due to lack of prima facie case, but directed the appellants to deposit ₹8 crores in two instalments to secure a stay against SARFAESI auction measures initiated by the bank.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit ₹8 crores in two instalments to secure stay of further SARFAESI measures; request for 25% debt reduction dismissed.

M/S. Sameer Builders and Ors. versus Dcb Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 222/2023(WoD)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 572/2023 Between

¶3

M/s. Sameer Bui l ders & Ors. V/s.

¶4

…Respondent/s

¶5

The Authorized O fficer DCB Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s Mr. Tavakkal Sh a ikh, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Vinay Desh p ande, along with Mr. Rupak Saw a ngikar, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for Respondent.

¶6

-: Order dated: 12/04/2023:-

¶7

The matter is ta k en up for hearing by way of Pra e cipe filed by the Appellant for seeking urgent relief. The Appellant i s a borrower who is in appeal chal l enging the order of the D.R.T-I I , Ahmedabad in S.A. No. 220/2 0 23 dated 01.04.2023 declining to grant an interim relief to stall the S arfaesi measures initiated by the R espondent Bank on the grounds t hat there is no prima-facie case m ade out by the Appellant and t h at no prejudice whatsoever wo u ld be caused by taking possessio n of the property by the bank.

¶8

The Appel l ants have filed the S.A. challen g ing the Sarfaesi measures on the only ground that the OTS prop o sal submitted by the Appellants w as not entertained by the bank. T h e OTS proposal was rejected by t h e bank for reasons explained in t he reply which is given to the App e llants.

¶9

¶10

The Ld. P.O. has gone through the documents and come to the conclusion that no prima-facie case is made out therefore they are not entitled to any relief. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that the Appellants have not challenged the notice issued u/s. 13 (2) or the subsequent steps which were taken under the SARFAESI Act and that would amount to a waiver of their right to challenge the Sarfaesi measures.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent has relied upon the decisions ARCE Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs Alphine Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 221 in support of his contentions. It is alleged that the Appellants are under financial strain. But there is absolutely no evidence in support of that contentions and there is no evidence forthcoming.

¶12

Although it is stated that the income tax returns and statement of account of the Appellants have been produced, no documents are produced in support of the contentions. Hence, I do not find any reasons to exercise the discretionary power of this Tribunal under the third proviso to Sec 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The outstanding amount as per the demand notice is ₹ 15,16,00,285.71 as of 17.08.2022 and as on the date of filing the Appeal, the amount due from the Appellant would be ₹ 16,15,17,382.14 as borne out from the statement produced by the Respondent.

¶13

In view of the fact that there is no prima facie case made out by the Appellants and their financial strain also has not been proven, the Appellant is not entitled to any concession to get the amount reduced to the minimum of 25%.

¶14

¶15

However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 8 crores in two equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid within four weeks on or before 10.05.2023 and the second instalment shall be paid within four weeks therefrom, on or before 07.06.2023. On payment of the amount the Appellant shall be entitled to get a stay of the further Sarfaesi measures initiated by the bank. Default in payment of the amount within the stipulated time shall entail in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to the Tribunal. 8. The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Post on 11.05.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶19

Sd/Chairperson

¶20

rm-32

¶21

M/S. Sameer Builders and Ors. v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sameer Builders and Ors. v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Patilbua Ugale versus Canara Bank

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/S Kankairya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.

Icici Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Radhee Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Sachin Navin Sheregar & Anr. versus a.O., L & T Hsg. Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Mrs. Gita Navnath Lambhade and Anr. versus A.O. L & T Housing Finance Ltd. & Others

M/S. Vnr Enterprises and Ors. versus Union Bank of India