Appeal against DRAT order denying stall relief on SAI/SRFAESI measures. DRAT rejected waiver of 25% pre-deposit due to insufficient financial proof, directing Rs 13 lakhs deposit to stay possession proceedings.
Appellants directed to deposit Rs. 13 lakhs as pre-deposit; pending payment, taking of possession is stayed.
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. 509/2023 (WoD) In
Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 1245/2023
Between
M/s. Sandeep Textiles & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
The Authorized Officer, …Respondent/s IDFC First Bank Ltd.
Mr. Sachin Kaikini, i/b Mr Dhrumit, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. R.L. Motwani along with Mr. Sachin Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.1
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.
The Appellants are in Appeal impugning the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) dated 17.07.2023 in Securitization Application (S.A.) No. 398/2022 declined to grant any relief in favour of the Appellants to stall the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the 1st Respondent Bank for recovery of the amount allegedly due from the Appellants towards the facilities of loan granted to them. The 1st Appellant is a proprietorship of which the 2nd Appellant is a sole proprietor. The rest of the Appellants are coborrowers/guarantors/mortgagors.
1
Magistrate u/s 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short). The Appellants had prior to that received the demand notice u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act demanding a sum of ₹ 29,74,292.15 as of 13.03.2020. The Appellants did not respond to that notice and therefore, the 1st Respondent proceeded with the Sarfaesi measures by taking the symbolic possession of the secured assets on 17.10.2020 u/s 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Even subsequent to the taking over of symbolic possession of the property the Appellants did not take any steps to challenge the Sarfaesi measures. The 1st Respondent thereafter obtained the order of taking physical possession u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the District Magistrate and notice was issued to the Appellants fixing the date of taking physical possession of the property. It is at that stage that the Appellants approached the D.R.T. with an application to set aside Sarfaesi measures. From the Application, it seems that the Appellants have challenged all the Sarfaesi measures starting from the classification of debt as NPA till the order was passed for physical possession u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
2
by the bank. The Appellants did not take any steps to make substantial payment thereafter, and therefore, the 1st Respondent was at liberty to take possession of the property. The Appellants were aggrieved and hence, in Appeal.
3
a minimum of 25% as pleaded. After adjusting the payment of ₹ 6.40 lakhs, the outstanding amount as of date is ₹ 26,76,789.12. The Appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 13 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining the Appeal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the demand draft for ₹ 2 lakhs would be submitted tomorrow. The balance ₹11 lakhs shall be payable within three weeks, i.e. on or before 16.08.2023. In default of payment of the amount within the stipulated time shall entail in dismissal of Appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal. On payment of the aforesaid amount, the Appellants shall be entitled to get the taking over possession deprived until further order.
Post on 17.08.2023 for reporting compliance.
psa-06
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellants are entitled to a waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under the SARFAESI Act.
What amount of pre-deposit must be made by the Appellants to entertain the appeal against the lower Tribunal order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Sandeep Textiles & Ors.
IDFC First Bank Ltd.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
