Ajitsinh Khumansinh Sisodia v. Bank of India
Case brief
What is this about?
The DRAT considered an I.A. regarding pre-deposit for an appeal challenging a sale in DR proceedings. Directing a partial waiver, the court fixed a pre-deposit of ₹15 lakhs with an ad-interim stay on disposal pending compliance, while remitting the substantive pre-deposit objection to a later stage. Also directed auction purchaser not to create third-party interest.
What did the court decide?
Appellant directed to deposit ₹15 lakhs as pre-deposit within a week; ad-interim stay on dispossession allowed pending deposit; auction purchaser restricted from creating third-party interest.
What the court decided
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
I.A. No. 450/2023 (WoD) In
Appeal on Diary No. 986/2023
Between
Ajitsinh Kumarsinh Sisodia … Appellant/s
V/s.
Bank of India & Anr.
…Respondent/s
Mr Sandeep Bhat, Advocate for Appellant. Mr O.A. Das, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Bank. Mr Dharmendra Tiwary, i/b Mr Santosh Thakur, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of praecipe dated 27.06.2023 filed by Appellant for seeking urgent relief.
- The Appellant is in appeal challenging the judgment in Appeal No. 03 of 2023 dated 15.05.2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal No. I, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal challenging the order of the Recovery Officer to set aside the sale in the Recovery Proceedings No. 482 of 2018. The Appellant is the borrower and Original Application (O.A.) No. 347 of 2017 was decreed by the D.R.T. vide judgment and order dated 14.08.2018 for a sum of ₹18,95,569/- together with interest @11.15% per annum from the Defendants jointly and severally from out of the secured assets and personally and also from the hypothecated goods. The case of the Appellant is that the demand
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit amount under Section 21 of the RDB Act.
Whether the appellate proceedings should be allowed without requiring a detailed reply from the respondent bank at the current stage.
What terms and conditions should be imposed on the appellant regarding the pre-deposit and stay order.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ajitsinh Kumarsinh Sisodia
- respondent
Bank of India
- respondent
Respondent No.2
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court