Disposed

Satishbhai Anandbhai Lungariya v. Rbl Bank Limited

DRAT6 Jun 2023IA/313/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim order, the Tribunal disposed of an application for stay in an appeal against a decision declining interim relief on SARFAESI measures. The court ordered the appellants to deposit ₹50 lakhs in two installments to secure a stay of further recovery actions.

What did the court decide?

Stay of further SARFAESI measures granted subject to deposit of ₹50 lakhs pre-deposit in two installments.

Satishbhai Anandbhai Lungariya versus Rbl Bank Limited — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 313/2023 (WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 737/2023

¶4

Between

¶5

Satishbhai Anandbhai Lungariya & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Authorized Officer, RBL Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s Mr Dhrumit D. Chauhan, Advocate for Appellants. Mr Meghnath Navlani, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶7

-: Order dated: 06/06/2023:-

¶8

The Appellants are in appeal challenging the order dated 06.05.2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 215 of 2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal No. II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) declining to grant any interim reliefs to the Appellants with regard to the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent Bank. The Appellants had undertaken before the D.R.T. to pay 10% of the outstanding amount without even going into the merits of the case and accordingly, an order was made by the Tribunal on 18.03.2023. The said amount was paid, though with a delay of 5 days. Thereafter, the Appellants sought further concession which the Ld. Presiding Officer was not willing to grant and hence, aggrieved by that order of declining to grant any interim relief, the Appellants are in appeal.

¶9

The grounds on which the Sarfaesi measures have been

¶10

¶11

challenged in S.A. No. 215 of 2022 is mainly that the proceedings under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated against a dead person. The Appellants are the legal representatives of a deceased person namely Anandbhai Majhibai Lungariya who was the original borrower and had died on 17.04.2021. The order under Sec. 14 was passed on 09.11.2022 subsequent to his demise. It is stated that the Respondent Bank had deliberately concealed the fact regarding the demise of the original borrower from the District Magistrate.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that there was no deliberate concealment of the fact regarding the death. It is stated that when the application under Sec. 14 was filed before the District Magistrate the Bank was not informed about the demise of the borrower by anyone and that only in this application filed under Sec. 17 of the SARFAESI Act on 20.01.2022 that fact regarding the demise of the original borrower is mentioned. It is also pointed out by the Respondent Bank that the notice along with the copy of the S.A. was served to the Respondent Bank on 15.03.2023 which is long after the order under Sec. 14 was passed. It is only from the S.A. copy that the Bank got information about the demise of the original borrower and therefore, there was no willful concealment of the fact of death.

¶13

The Appellants would contend that they have a good case on merits and that the impugned order was passed without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the Appellants. It is also contended that the Appellants are under financial strain and the balance sheet and the Income Tax Returns have filed in support of that contention

¶14

¶15

proves it.

¶16

The Respondent Bank would contend that as of date there is an outstanding due of ₹1,47,27,401/- due from the Appellants after giving credit to the amount which has been paid by them. It is stated that the balance sheet produced by the Appellants would indicate that they have assets worth more than ₹3 crores and therefore, the contention that they are in impecunious condition cannot be accepted.

¶17

The Appellants have declared assets worth more than ₹3 crores but the income which is revealed in the Income Tax Return is still not sufficient and that is the reason why the Appellants would contend that they are under financial strain. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the Appellants should deposit a sum of ₹50 lakhs towards the pre-deposit amount. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants is producing a demand draft of ₹10 lakhs. The balance of ₹40 lakhs shall be paid in two equal instalments of ₹20 lakhs each. The first instalment shall be payable within two weeks from today i.e. on or before 20.06.2023 and the second instalment shall be payable within two weeks therefrom i.e. on or before 04.07.2023. Default in payment of instalment shall entail in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal. 7. Since the Appellants have already deposited ₹10 lakhs towards the pre-deposit amount, there shall be a stay of the further Sarfaesi measures until further order.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Post on 21.06.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the first instalment.

¶23

Sd/Chairperson

¶24

mks-6

¶25

Satishbhai Anandbhai Lungariya v. Rbl Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satishbhai Anandbhai Lungariya v. Rbl Bank 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation & Anr. versus Mrs. Pushpa Ramrao Ghayal

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation & Anr. versus Mr Pravin Prabhakrrao Pande & Anr.

Dewan Housing Finance Corporation & Anr. versus Mr Pandurang Babasaheb Gange & Anr.

Amol G Mitra versus Bank of India

Bholenath Industries and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India & Ors. versus Official Liquidator High Court Bombay being the liquidator of M/s Parth Foils Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.