Disposed

hotel platinum and Ors. v. piramal capital and housing finance Ltd.

DRAT21 Nov 2023IA/731/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, disposed of the matter at the Interim stage by directing the Appellants to deposit a sum of ₹60 lakhs in two instalments. Upon payment of the first instalment, the Appellants were granted an injunction against further enforcement measures under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing Appellants to deposit ₹60 lakhs in two instalments; injunction against further SARFAESI measures until next hearing upon payment of the first instalment.

hotel platinum and Ors. versus piramal capital and housing… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 731/2023 (WoD) In

¶2

Appeal on Diary No. 1936/2023 Between

¶3

M/s Hotel Platinum & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶4

V/s.

¶5

Authorised Officer, Piramal Capital and Housing Finance …Respondent/s

¶6

Mr Rajesh Nagori i/b Mr Dhrumit D Chauhan, Advocate for Appellants.

¶7

Mr R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

The Appellants are the borrowers/mortgagors and directors who are coming in appeal impugning the order dated 23.10.2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 280 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T.) whereby the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any interlocutory reliefs to the Appellants concerning the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent Financial Institution for recovery of the debt under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short). The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal. The Appellants had raised several contentions with regard to the validity of the demand notice under Sec. 13(2) for want of break-up as required under Sec. 13(3). It is also contended that there was noncompliance with the mandatory statutory provisions of Rules 8(1) &

¶9

¶10

(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The order was obtained with regard to the secured asset from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. The Appellants are challenging the said measures also. It is stated that the Appellants had approached the bank for a one-time settlement (OTS) which was not accepted. The Ld. Presiding Officer did not find a prima facie case in favour of the Appellants and hence, refused to grant any interlocutory orders and posted the S.A. for final hearing. The Appellants would contend that they have a strong prima facie case.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Financial Institution submits that the Appellants have not successfully established a prima facie case in challenging the Sarfaesi measures. It is also stated that the Appellants have come up with an OTS proposal which indicates that they have money to pay and the averment regarding the financial strain is not genuine Hence, no indulgence being shown the Appellants be directed to pay 50% of the amount as demanded under Sec. 13(2).

¶12

The demand notice issued under Sec. 13(2) demanded a total sum of ₹1.94 crores consequent to receipt of the demand notice the Appellants have immediately paid a sum of ₹54 lakhs directly to the Respondent and the balance amount would be around ₹1.40 crores.

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that in the interest of justice, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹60 lakhs as pre-deposit in two equal instalments. The first instalment of ₹30 lakhs shall be payable within two weeks

¶14

¶15

and the second instalment of ₹30 lakhs shall be payable within three weeks therefrom as detailed herein.

¶16

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment₹30,00,000/-	05.12.2023
2^ndInstalment₹30,00,000/-	26.12.2023

¶17

Default in payment of any of the instalments entails in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal. 6. On the payment of the first instalment, the Appellants shall be entitled to an injunction with regard to further Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent till the next date of hearing.

¶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

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

¶21

Post on 06.12.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the first instalment.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

mks-03

¶24

hotel platinum and Ors. v. piramal capital and housing finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

hotel platinum and Ors. v. piramal capital and housing finance 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

Azure Auto Ind Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

Mrs Uma Venkatesh Deshpande versus Nkgsb Co-Operative Bank Limited

Mr. Venkatesh Deshpande & 2 Ors. versus Nkgsb Co-op Bank Ltd. & Anr.

Kailash Govindram Batra versus Icici Bank Limited

Rishabh Constructions versus Shyam Pannalal Jaiswal

Gogila Textiles and Ors. versus Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited