Partly allowed

Mr Manish Mahendrabhai Patel And Anr. v. Authorised Officer Indian Bank

DRAT24 Aug 2023IA/571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the interim application of the appellants challenging SARFAESI measures. The court directed the deposit of a pre-deposit amount via demand draft in three instalments to grant an interim stay on possession of secured assets during the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed deposit of Rs. 2.25 cores pre-deposit in three instalments with grant of interim stay on possession of secured assets.

Mr Manish Mahendrabhai Patel And Anr. versus Authorised… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 571/2023 (WoD)

¶3

¶4

Appeal on Diary No. 1444/2023

¶5

Between

¶6

Manish Mahendrabhai Patel &Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶7

Authorised Officer, Indian Bank …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr Rajesh Nagory, i/b Ms Sanjana Ghogare, Advocate for Appellants. Mr Ajikumar, i/b M/s VNA Legal, Advocate for Respondent Bank.

¶9

-: Order dated: 24/08/2023:-

¶10

The Appellants are in appeal challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T) dated 01.08.2023 in S.A. No.172/2023 where the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interlocutory reliefs to the Applicants and listed the matter for the final hearing of the S.A. on 26.09.2023. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence in appeal. The Appellants are the borrowers/mortgages/ guarantors and challenging the Sarfaesi measures under various accounts.

¶11

It is stated that the demand notice u/s. 13 (2) has not complied with the mandatory provisions under Sub Sec. 3 of Sec. 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short). The account was classified as NPA wrongly and the Appellants were in difficulty because of the pandemic therefore there

¶12

¶13

was a default in repayment of the debt which indicates that they were not willful defaulters. The Appellant seeks indulgence of this Tribunal to keep the mandatory pre-deposit required to be paid u/s. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act at a minimum of 25%.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has vehemently opposed the application and has sought time to file a reply. The physical possession of the secured property is intended to be taken tomorrow and hence, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants are in urgency of hearing the matter.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that there is an outstanding balance of ₹ 5,13,00,000/- due and payable from the Appellants. Even though the Appellants have contended that their business was not functioning properly because of the pandemic and its aftermath. It is also contended that the 1^st Appellant is in judicial custody and that his wife who is the 2^nd Appellant finds it difficult to make ends meet. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶16

The Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 2.25 cores as pre-deposit. A demand draft of ₹ 10,00,000/- is being submitted today towards the aforesaid amount. The balance amount shall be paid in three equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each. The first instalment of ₹ 71,66,667/- shall be paid on or before 07.09.2023 and the second instalment ₹ 71,66,667/- shall be paid on or before 21.09.2023 and the third instalment ₹ 71,66,666/- shall be paid on or before 05.10.2023. On the payment of ₹ 10,00,000/today, there shall be an interim stay preventing the Respondents

¶17

¶18

from taking possession of the secured assets till the next date of hearing. In default, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶19

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Post on 08.09.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶23

Sd/Chairperson

¶24

rm-6

¶25

Mr Manish Mahendrabhai Patel And Anr. v. Authorised Officer Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Manish Mahendrabhai Patel And Anr. v. Authorised Officer Indian 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

Canara Bank versus Kailash B Gupta and Ors.

Ms Maninder Kaur Maewah & Ors. versus Canara Bank & Ors.

Canara Bank versus Maninder Kaur Marwah, & Ors.

Bank of Baroda versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Hashmi Sayed Nisar Ahmed Sayed Murtuza versus State Bank of India

Dinesh S Deshmukh and Anr. versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.