DrAT Mumbai directed appellants to deposit 25% pre-deposit in two instalments. TwO-week delay would dismiss appeal. SAA pending measures stayed on payment.
Appellants to deposit 25lakhs in two instalments within 2 and 3 weeks. SAA stayed on payment. Default leads to dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 421/2023(WoD) In
Appeal on Diary No. 750/2023
M/s Strowberry Retailing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Through its Authorised Officer. Mr Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Appellants. Mrs Uma Fadia, Advocate for Respondent.
…Respondent/s
-: Order dated: 29/08/2023:-
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 17.04.2023 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 755 of 2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No.304 of 2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) where the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interim reliefs to the Applicant therein to stall the Sarfaesi measures intended to be taken by the Respondent Financial Institution. The Appellants admittedly had taken a loan from the Respondent by mortgaging their Flat No. 13 and had created a security interest. On defaulting repayment of the loan, the Respondent issued a demand notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) demanding a sum of ₹55,93,490/-. The Appellant did not pay the amount as a consequence of which steps under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated and
1
an order obtained on 28.06.2022 to take physical possession of the secured asset. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) issued a notice on 08.09.2022 to take physical possession of the property. The Appellants approached the D.R.T. by filing S.A. No. 304 of 2022. The earlier notice of taking physical possession did not fructify and hence, yet another notice was issued on 27.03.2023 intending to take physical possession of the secured asset on 17.04.2023. At this point, the Appellants filed the aforementioned I.A. No. 755 of 2023 seeking interlocutory relief to prevent taking over physical possession of the secured asset. The application was also filed as I.A. No. 754 of 2023 for amendment of the S.A. in consequence of the subsequent notice received by the Appellants.
2
existence and have little income to pay the mandatory pre-deposit. The fifth Appellant is a housewife without any sort of earnings. Hence, the Appellants pray that the indulgence may be shown by exercising the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under the 3rd provision to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act by keeping the amount to the minimum of 25% of the amount demanded.
3
the Bhavdipbhai Arunbhai Dave vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. MANU/GJ/0273/2022 which is relied upon by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the demand notice demands a sum of ₹55,93,490/- and considering the prima facie case and the financial strain undergone by the Appellants, the amount may be restricted to 25% of the aforesaid amount shown in the demand notice, submits the Ld. Counsel.
4
entail in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal.
Post on 13.09.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the first instalment.
Sd/-
Chairperson
mks-3
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appellants are entitled to lower pre-deposit of 25% given financial strain and prima facie non-compliance of notice.
Whether notice under Sec. 13(2) non-compliance can be cured by expiry of notice period.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhavdipbhai Arunbhai Dave vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.Relied on¶16
Bhavdipbhai Arunbhai Dave vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. MANU/GJ/0273/2022
4 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Strowberry Retailing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
