Disposed

Abhinav Education Society v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT7 Jun 2023IA/336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged the refusal of interlocutory relief in an appeal challenging SARFAESI proceedings. The Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of ₹ 20 crores (₹ 1 crore paid immediately, rest in three installments) to entertain the appeal and stay further proceedings pending possession.

What did the court decide?

Stay of taking over of possession and further proceedings until ₹ 20 crores are deposited in three installments.

Abhinav Education Society versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 336/2023(WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.332/2023 Between

¶4

Abhinav Education Society … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Bank Of Baroda …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr. Rajesh Nagori, i/b Ms. Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Appellant.

¶7

Ms. Rathina Maravarman, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶8

-: Order dated: 07/06/2023:-

¶9

Heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties in this application for a waiver of pre-deposit which is filed in the appeal challenging the order dated 21.02.2023 in S.A. No. 167/2019 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in I.A. No. 336/2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 167/2019 wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interlocutory reliefs to the Appellant.

¶10

There were also certain directions given by the D.R.T. regarding the functioning of the educational institution in the secured premises. The S.A. is filed raising contentions regarding the insufficiency in the notice u/s. 13 (2) and the proceedings u/s. 14 before the District Magistrate is also challenged. Prima facie the Ld. Presiding Officer did not find favour with the submissions made by the Appellants and hence declined to grant any relief.

¶11

¶12

After hearing the rival submissions, and on going through the facts and circumstances, I also do not find any substance in the contentions which have been raised in challenging the Sarfaesi measures. It appears that sufficient time has been granted to the Appellants to settle the entire dues but they have been failing to pay the amount. Proceedings have been also agitated before the Hon’ble High Court and certain adverse remarks have been passed regarding the conduct of the Appellants in protracting the matter.

¶13

In the reply filed by the Respondent, it is stated that the outstanding dues as of 31.05.2023 are ₹ 54.57 crores. Towards the pre-deposit amount the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant offers to deposit a sum of ₹ 1 crore. A proposal for settling the amount by December this year is also produced and offered to the bank which the bank will have to take into consideration. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the bank submits that similar proposals have been made thrice, none of which materialised. And therefore, no confidence can be reposed to the proposal made by the Appellant now, submits the Ld. Counsel.

¶14

On hearing the rival submissions and after taking the entire facts into consideration, I find that the Appellant will have to deposit a sum of ₹ 20 crores towards pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. ₹ 1 crore is being deposited today, and the balance amount shall be paid in three equal instalments. The first instalment shall be paid within three weeks, i.e. on or before 28.06.2023 and the second instalment shall be paid within three weeks therefrom, i.e. on or

¶15

¶16

before 19.07.2023 and the third instalment shall be paid within three weeks therefrom, i.e. on or before 09.08.2023.

¶17

Failure to pay the instalments on time shall entail dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal. It is understood that the possession of the property is scheduled to be taken tomorrow. In view of the deposit made, the taking over of possession shall be stalled till further orders.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

On deposit of the amount, there shall be a stay of the further proceedings with regard to the property and the second Respondent who is the auction purchaser and in possession of the property shall not create any third-party interest.

¶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 30.06.2023 for compliance.

¶23

rm-10

¶24

Abhinav Education Society v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhinav Education Society v. Bank of Baroda

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

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

Punjab National Bank versus Mr. Yogendrasinh Bharatsinh Rana

State Bank of India versus Kishorebhai Madhavlal Soni & Anr.

M/S Meeti Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Mrs Seema Ayaz Maniyar versus Axis Bank

M/S Meeti Developers Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda