Partly allowed

shailendrakumar dhirubhai nakarani and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited

DRAT3 Nov 2023IA/728/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal addressed an interim application regarding SARFAESI measures. The court reduced the pre-deposit requirement from 50% to a fixed sum of ₹20,00,000/- and stayed the recovery proceedings upon this deposit.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit ₹20,00,000/-; upon deposit, SARFAESI measures to be stayed till further orders.

shailendrakumar dhirubhai nakarani and Ors. versus Icici Bank… — Specific Performance | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A.No.728/2023(WoD)

¶2

In Appeal on Diary No. 1966/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Shaileshkumar Dhirubhai Nakarani & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s. The Authorized Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd. …Respondent/s Mr. Dhrumit Chauhan, Advocate for Appellant.

¶5

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

¶6

The Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 333/2020 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T) wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interlocutory relief protecting the physical possession of the secured assets belonging to the Appellants. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal.

¶7

The Appellants are challenging the entire Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent bank which includes the challenge to the notice issued u/s. 13 (2) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction Of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(“SARFAESI Act”’ for short) which has not shown the rate of interest claimed by the bank. It is also contended that steps regarding symbolic possession u/s. 13 (4) are not proper and that the

¶8

¶9

mandatory provisions under the Rules have not been complied with. There is also a challenge to the order of taking physical possession u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶10

On receipt of the notice u/s. 13 (2) after the filing of the S.A. the Appellants had paid ₹ 10,00,000/- towards the debt and also came up with an OTS proposal which was rejected by the bank. The Appellants sought interim reliefs to protect their residential property and the Appellants were directed to deposit 1/3^rd of the outstanding amount due to the bank which was calculated at ₹ 68.22 lakhs and on failure to do so, no interlocutory reliefs for protecting the property was granted.

¶11

The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal. The Appellants would state that they are under financial strain and that they have a very good case in challenging the Sarfaesi measures. The income tax returns of the 1^st Appellant are produced to indicate that he has no sufficient income to deposit 50% of the debt due which is demanded. As per the notice u/s. 13 (2) the demand is for a sum of ₹ 51,99,120/-.

¶12

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the mandatory pre-deposit may be confined to 25 % of that amount. The Respondent has been served but none appears and hence, there is no objection raised.

¶13

After considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the Appellants are entitled to some concession though not to the extent to get the amount reduced to a minimum of 25%. The Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/-

¶14

¶15

as pre-deposit. The Appellants are depositing a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- by way of demand draft today. The balance amount of ₹ 10,00,000/- shall be deposited within three weeks from today i.e. on or before 24.11.2023.

¶16

On failing to deposit the amount, the appeal shall stand dismissed. On deposit of the aforesaid pre-deposit amount, the Appellants shall be entitled to get the Sarfaesi measure stalled till further orders.

¶17

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

¶18

The amounts deposited, 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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Post on 28.11.2023 for reporting regarding the payment of instalment.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Chairperson rm-12

¶23

shailendrakumar dhirubhai nakarani and Ors. v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

shailendrakumar dhirubhai nakarani and Ors. v. Icici 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

Ms Mitexco and Ors. versus Canara Bank

Axis Bank Ltd. and Anr. versus Messr Jay Textiles and Ors.

Axis Bank and Anr. versus Ms Radhakrishna Textiles and Ors.

M/s. Crystal Solvent Pvt. Ltd. and Others versus Authorized Officer Nagpur Nagrik Sahkar Bank and Ors.

Dr. Sandip Ashok Bharude and Ors. versus Canara Bank

Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda