Disposed

Pramod S/O Ramesh Chintawar v. Kanyaka Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

DRAT1 Sept 2023IA/563/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal arising from DRAT Mumbai, the court directed the appellant to deposit 10 lakhs in three instalments as a pre-condition under the SARFAESI Act to entertain the appeal. Upon compliance, the appellant would obtain a stay on recovery measures.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs 10,00,000 in three instalments to entertain the appeal; stay on recovery measures pending first instalment.

Pramod S/O Ramesh Chintawar versus Kanyaka Nagari… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 563/2023 (WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 1019/2023 Between

¶4

Pramod S/o Ramesh Chintawar, … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Kanyaka Nagari Sahkari Bank Ltd. Mr. Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.

¶6

…Respondent/s

¶7

-: Order dated: 01/09/2023:-

¶8

The Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2023 in I.A. No. 1082/2023 in Securitisation Application(S.A.) No. 108/2016 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T) directing the Appellant to deposit some amount as a condition for stalling the Sarfaesi measures initiated against him.

¶9

The Appellant is a borrower/mortgager who had availed loan from the Respondent Bank. On repayment being defaulted, a demand notice u/s. 13 (2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) was issued on 24.06.2015 demanding payment of a sum of ₹ 20,24,074/-. The Appellant’s brother is a co-owner/mortgager of the secured assets and he died as early as on 14.12.2015 but his legal representatives were not served with any notice with regard to the Sarfaesi measures.

¶10

Thereafter, the Appellant filed the aforesaid S.A. challenging the Sarfaesi measures. In the meanwhile, the Respondent filed an application u/s. 14 before the Additional District Magistrate, Chandrapur and obtained an order on 23.01.2023 to take over physical possession of the property. Respondent No.2 mentioned in that application was the deceased brother of the Appellant and a comortgager. His legal representatives were not arrayed as parties.

¶11

¶12

According to the Appellant, the proceedings are therefore defective. The pending S.A. before the D.R.T was amended and the prayer to set aside the order u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act was also incorporated. In the meanwhile the S.A. was dismissed for default on 22.03.2017 and the Appellant filed an application for restoration of the same. M.A. No. 30/2017 was also filed for interlocutory relief. Vide order dated 14.03.2019, the D.R.T directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of ₹10,00,000/- as a condition to stall the Sarfaesi proceedings and accordingly the Appellant paid a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- to the Respondent and consequent to that, the S.A. was restored to file. The Respondent however attempted to take physical possession and the Appellant had undertaken to pay the entire dues to the Respondent Bank and recording that the present order was passed.

¶13

Before the order could be complied with, the authorized officer of the Respondent Bank submitted that the possession had already been taken when there was an order of status quo in place and in the very same order the D.R.T. directed the authorized officer to restore possession of the property to the Appellant which has already being done.

¶14

In order to entertain the appeal, the Appellant will have to comply with the statutory requirement of the mandatory pre-deposit u/s. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Appellant has made substantial payments consequent to the demand notice and it is submitted that there is a balance of around ₹ 10,00,000/- remaining and the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant undertakes to deposit that amount before this Tribunal as pre-deposit.

¶15

The Respondent who was served did not appear and was therefore set ex-parte. In order to entertain the appeal Appellant is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- in three equal instalments or ₹ 3,33,333/- each. The 1^st instalment shall be payable within two weeks, i.e. on or before 15.09.2023 and the 2^nd instalment shall be

¶16

¶17

payable within two weeks therefrom, i.e. on or before 29.09.2023 therefrom and the 3^rd instalment shall be payable two weeks therefron, i.e. on or before 13.10.2023. On payment of the 1^st instalment, the Appellant shall be entitled to a stay with regard to the further Sarfaesi measures. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶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

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.

¶21

Post on 18.09.2023 for reporting compliance regarding 1^st instalment.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

rm-2

¶24

Pramod S/O Ramesh Chintawar v. Kanyaka Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod S/O Ramesh Chintawar v. Kanyaka Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd.

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

Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait Bsc versus Hdfc Bank Limited & Anr.

E-Star Infotech Ltd. versus Union Bank of India & Ors.

E Star Infotech Ltd. and Anr. versus Union Bank of India and Anr.

Mrs Pratiksha Chandrakant Pawar versus Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited

Parekh Automotives Pvt. Ltd. versus Apna Sahkari Bank Ltd.

Apurva Annasaheb Mohite versus Punjab National Bank & Ors.