Allowed

Smt Renu Arun Jain v. Punjab National Bank

DRAT19 Jul 2023IA/424/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appearing before the DRAT Mumbai, the court addressed an interim application regarding the pre-deposit amount during an appeal against SARFAESI measures. Finding the appellant financially strained based on income tax returns, the court directed a deposit of ₹1.20 crores in four instalments. Failure to pay would result in the appeal's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit ₹1.20 crores in four equal instalments within 15 days gap; stay of further SARFAESI measures upon payment of first instalment.

Smt Renu Arun Jain versus Punjab National Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 424/2023 (WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 1028/2023

¶2

Between

¶3

Renu Arun Jain … Appellant/s

¶4

V/s.

¶5

The Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank …Respondent/s Mr Rajesh Nagory, i/b Ms Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Appellant. Ms Asha Bhuta, i/b M/s. Bhuta & Associates, Advocate for Respondent.

¶6

Application under section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short). The Appellant is the partner of a dissolved partnership firm which had borrowed money from the Respondent Bank and consequently defaulted payment as a consequence of which the account was classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) on 10.10.2019 and thereafter, a demand notice was issued under Sec. 13(2) demanding a sum of ₹3.90 crores approximately. The Appellant filed Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 52 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal No. I, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) challenging the Sarfaesi measures starting from the notice issued under Sec. 13(2). That apart, the Appellant has also raised contentions to the effect that

¶7

¶8

the loan was improperly granted to the firm, for which, the Appellant is not responsible. The other partners have allegedly settled with the Bank without the concurrence of the Appellant and the Appellant would, therefore, not be liable for the entire amount i.e. claimed as due. It is contended that consequent to the dissolution of the firm, the Appellant has no income. She is a senior citizen and the income tax returns are produced to show that her income is meager. The Appellant would, therefore, seek the indulgence of this Tribunal to keep the pre-deposit at the minimum of 25% exercising the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under the third proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶9

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank submits that the Appellant did not cooperate with the settlement which was offered by the other partners and the Sarfaesi measures against the other partners have already been withdrawn. The property belonging to the Appellant is now intended to be sold and the sale notice has been published. As of 30.06.2023, the outstanding amount due from the Appellant is ₹4,15,83,112.52 and the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank submits that the Appellant be asked to deposit 50% of that amount towards the pre-deposit since the Appellant has no prima facie case and financial strain is also not sufficiently proved and established.

¶10

After having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the records that are available, I find that the Appellant is financially strained because her income tax returns show meager income. She has raised several contentions against the Sarfaesi

¶11

¶12

measures which will have to be considered in the appeal. The S.A. has been dismissed and challenged in the appeal. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹1.20 crores as pre-deposit which shall be paid in four equal instalments of ₹30 lakhs each. The first instalment shall be payable within 15 days from today i.e. on or before 03.08.2023 and the rest of the instalments shall be payable within a gap of 15 days each, i.e. on or before 18.08.2023, on or before 02.09.2023 and on or before 17.09.2023. Failure to pay any of the above instalments on time shall entail in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶13

On the payment of the first instalment, the Appellant shall be entitled to stay of the further Sarfaesi measures intended to be taken. 5. The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Post on 04.08.2023 for reporting compliance with the first instalment.

¶17

mks-6

¶18

Smt Renu Arun Jain v. Punjab National Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Renu Arun Jain v. Punjab National Bank

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

Raghunath Maku Kokare versus Gic Housing Finance Ltd.

Bank of India & Anr. versus Ashrf Husain Mian & Ors.

Bank of India & Ors. versus Mr Mahesh S/O Shrikant Joshi

M/s. Geetanjali Kelavani Mandal and Ors. versus m/s. Religare finvest Ltd.

Raj Decor versus Bank of Baroda

Sunil Prabhudas patel versus Rbl Bank Limited