Disposed

Narendrakumar Mathuradasji Bardia and Ors. v. Idfc First Bank Ltd.

DRAT21 Sept 2023IA/643/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the interim application praying for a reduction of the pre-deposit to 25%. It found no strong prima facie case for staying SARFAESI measures. Appellants directed to deposit ₹70 lakh in three installments for stay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit ₹70 lakh in three installments; stay of SARFAESI measures granted upon payment of the first installment.

Narendrakumar Mathuradasji Bardia and Ors. versus Idfc First… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.643/2023(WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Dairy No.1647/2023

¶4

Between

¶5

Narendra Kumar S/o Mathuradasji Bardia And … Appellant/s Ors.

¶6

V/s

¶7

IDFC First Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶8

Mr. Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

Mr. Rajesh Nagory, i/b Mr. R.L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

-: Order dated: 21/09/2023:-

¶11

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

¶12

The Appellants are borrowers who are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.08.2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 106/2020 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T) wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any protection order to the Appellants with regard to the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ the SARFAESI Act” for short).

¶13

The Appellants had defaulted repayment of the debt and a demand notice u/s. 13 (2) was issued claiming a sum of ₹ 2,36,18,473.62 on 18.04.2019. The Appellants did not pay the

¶14

¶15

amount and hence, steps u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated and the order was obtained from the District Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset. The Appellants approached the D.R.T. for relief u/s. 17 of the SARFAESI Act. It is alleged that only one of the Appellants was served with notice u/s. 13 (2) even though certain postal receipts are produced by the bank, there is no evidence regarding receipt of those notices by the Appellants. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants that one of the receipts would show that the notice was signed by Advocate Mr. R.L. Motwani and that the authorized officer cannot delegate the issuance of notice u/s. 13 (2) to the debtors. The Appellants seek to keep the mandatory pre-deposit at a minimum of 25% of the debt due.

¶16

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank vehemently opposes the application for concession regarding the deposit of the amount contemplated u/s. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act and states that the outstanding dues as of date are approximately ₹ 2,93,00,000/- and that the Appellants have not come up with any proposal to repay any portion of the debt. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent also submits that the notices were all sent by the authorised officer and only the receipt was in the name of the Counsel and that does not invalidate the notices which were all signed by the authorized officer.

¶17

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants would contend that the Appellants are under financial strain, their business has shut

¶18

¶19

down and closed and they had certain petrol pumps run by them surrendered, to prove which, letters are being produced. It is also submitted that there is a default in repayment of loans to other banks and financial institutions as well, in respect of which steps have been initiated. That apart, the Appellants had suffered a burglary in his jewellery shop resulting in huge losses regarding which an FIR was registered and produced as proof of loss sustained by the Appellants. 5. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants would therefore pray that the amount payable by the Appellants may be restricted to 25% of the amount that is demanded in 13 (2) notice issued by the Respondent Bank and they may be given the concession of reducing to 25%.

¶20

After hearing both sides and perusal of the records available, I find that the Appellants do not have any strong prima facie case with regard to the challenges to the Sarfaesi measures. It is also indicated that they have been defaulting amount payables to the other banks as well. Security interest has been created with respect to the debt to be recovered by the Respondent and the Respondent is proceeding with that recovery.

¶21

The Appellants are therefore directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 70,00,000/- as pre-deposit in three equal instalments. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants undertakes to pay a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- by 25.09.2023. The balance amount of ₹ 50,00,000/shall be payable in two equal instalments of ₹ 25,00,000/-, within a gap of two weeks each, as stated hereunder.

¶22

¶23

Numbers of Instalments Payment on or before

¶24

1^stInstalment	09.10.2023
2^ndInstalment	23.10.2023

¶25

Default in payment of the ageed amount or the instalments, shall entail the appeal being dismissed without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶26

On payment of the agreed amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- the Appellants shall be entitled to a stay of the further Sarfaesi measures till the next date of hearing.

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Post on 26.09.2023 for reporting the payment of instalment.

¶31

rm-9

¶32

Narendrakumar Mathuradasji Bardia and Ors. v. Idfc First Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendrakumar Mathuradasji Bardia and Ors. v. Idfc First 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

Similar cases

Ratna F Jaiswal versus M/S. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. versus Shakti Constructions

The Jalgaon District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. versus the Raver Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr.

Shree Ganesh Tubewell and Borewell versus Jijau Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

oswal shirish dalichand huf karta shrish oswal versus Indian Bank

Tajshree Enterprises versus Idfc First Bank Ltd.