Partly allowed

Vaishali Vinod Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

DRAT8 Sept 2023IA/615/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an I.A. during appeal against dismissal of a Securitization Application under SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal directed Appellants to deposit ₹ 75 lakhs as mandatory pre-deposit before admission of appeal for staying proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit ₹ 75 lakhs in three instalments as mandatory pre-deposit under Section 18(1) SARFAESI Act to seek stay of proceedings in appeal.

Vaishali Vinod Bombale versus Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 615/2023 (WoD)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 1498/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Vaishali Vinod Bombale & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

Shri. Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Co-op. …Respondent/s Bank Ltd., Beed, & Ors. Mr. K.B. Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Prashant D. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2

¶6

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶7

The Appellants are the borrowers who have come up in appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the Securitization Application (S.A.) No. at Diary No. 188/2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T.) vide order dated 08.06.2023.

¶8

The Appellants have filed the S.A. with a delay which they seek to condone. It appears that the Ld. Presiding Officer was not pleased with the conduct of the Appellants since, every time notice for taking possession was issued by the bank which has obtained an order u/s 14 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short) from the District Magistrate on 15.09.2022, the Appellants comes up with a proposal to settled the matter. The Appellants have

¶9

¶10

contended that the amount was paid in instalments to the Respondent Bank and a total of ₹ 27 lakhs has already been paid consequent to the receipt of notice u/s 13 (2).

¶11

As pointed out by the Ld. Presiding Officer, the Appellants were coming up with some ruse to protract the Sarfaesi measures, by coming up with proposals of settlement of the debt as and when they received notice to take possession of the property. However, no settlement has been fructified so far. As per the demand notice issued u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act there is an outstanding debt of ₹ 1,69,23,771/- as of 11.10.2021. The Appellants have stated that because of the pandemic, their business suffered and could not be revived. The Appellants have not produced any documents to indicate their financial strain.

¶12

The reasons mentioned in the S.A. for stalling the Sarfaesi measures could be considered only when the delay in filing the application is condoned in the first instance. The Ld. Presiding Officer has not yet applied his mind to the sufficiency of the reasons supplied by the Appellants for condoning the delay. The Ld. Counsel appearing for Respondents vehemently opposed the application and stated that the Appellants were not serious about settling the dues and that they had been seeking adjournment. There is no reason for reducing the mandatory pre-deposit to 25% as prayed by the Appellants and therefore, the Appellants may be directed to pay the 50% amount of the demanded.

¶13

After considering the entire facts and circumstance, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 75 lakhs as mandatory pre-deposit u/s 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act in three equal 2

¶14

instalments. The 1^st instalment of ₹25 lakhs shall be payable within three weeks, i.e. on or before 29.09.2023. The 2^nd instalment of ₹ 25 lakhs shall be payable within the period of two weeks therefrom, i.e. on or before 13.10.2023 and the 3^rd instalment of ₹ 25 lakhs shall be payable within the period of two weeks therefrom, i.e. on or before 27.10.2023. On the payment of the 1^st instalment, the Appellants shall be entitled to stay of the further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act initiated against them stayed till the next date of the hearing. Failure to pay the instalments shall entail in dismissal of the Appeal without further reference to this Tribunal.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondents is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶18

Post on 03.10.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the payment of the 1^st instalment.

¶19

psa-08

¶20

Vaishali Vinod Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaishali Vinod Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

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

Similar cases

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

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs Kashmira, d/o Shri Mohan Nihalani

State Bank of India versus M/s. P.K. Thakkar Construction Private Limited

M/s.Ipsel Ventures versus Axis Bank

Mr. Rajeshwari s/o Kashinath Pathak versus Idbi Bank Limited

Akola Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus Ramesh Vishwabhar Parsewar