Partly allowed

Vinod Girdharilal Jaiswal v. Authorized officer Shriram Housing Finance Ltd.

DRAT7 Nov 2023IA/736/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowing an interim stay on dispossession proceedings pending final order. The DRAT accepted a total ₹10 lakhs pre-deposition from appellants, satisfying the mandatory threshold, and deferred the scheduled asset seizure.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay on dispossession of the secured residential property granted upon payment of ₹10 lakhs as pre-deposit and direction to invest same in term deposits.

Vinod Girdharilal Jaiswal versus Authorized officer Shriram… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 736/2023(WoD) In

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 1987/2023 Between

¶4

Vinod Girdharilal Jaiswal & Anr. … Appellant/s

¶5

V/s.

¶6

The Authorised Officer, Shriram Housing Finance Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

…Respondent/s

¶8

Mr Gaurang Kinkhabwala, i/b Ms Sonali Jain, Advocate for Appellants.

¶9

Mr Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ARCIL.

¶10

-: Order dated: 07/11/2023:-

¶11

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed on 01.11.2023 by the Appellants seeking urgent relief.

¶12

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 1209 of 2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 461 of 2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer dismissed the I.A. and declined to grant any interlocutory reliefs to the Appellants with regard to the Sarfaesi measures initiated against the secured asset belonging to the Appellants under the provisions of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short). The Ld. Presiding Officer had, in the impugned order, observed that the Appellants have not been depositing any amount towards the debt since 2015 and have

¶13

¶14

not taken any steps to settle the debt as undertaken. The Appellants are aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the I.A. and hence, in appeal.

¶15

In order to entertain the appeal, the Appellants will have to comply with the mandatory provisions of making a pre-deposit as contemplated under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The notice under Sec.13(2) was issued on 27.07.2016 demanding a sum of ₹26,58,735/- on account of the housing loan availed by the Appellants. In view of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ano. vs. Prudent ARC Ltd & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12 , the Respondent has taken steps to take physical possession of the secured asset after obtaining an order under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act from the District Magistrate. The Appellants have challenged the Sarfaesi measures right from the demand notice issued under Sec. 13(2) till the notice obtained for dispossession under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. Hence, the threshold amount for depositing the pre-deposit is the amount mentioned in the demand notice under Sec. 13(2). The Appellants have pleaded that they are under financial strain. Their Income Tax Returns are also produced to substantiate that claim of impecuniosity. In the impugned order, the Ld. Presiding Officer has not entered the merits of the challenge made in the application. The only ground dismissal of the application and declining to grant an interlocutory relief was that the Appellants had been postponing payment for one reason or another. Interlocutory application for stalling the Sarfaesi measures should always be based on the merits of the case and not a ground that the Appellants have been defaulting payment which was

¶16

¶17

undertaken to be made.

¶18

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent states that there is an outstanding dues of more than ₹87 lakhs as of date.

¶19

The secured asset is a residential house. The Appellants are facing dispossession of the property. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants have produced a demand draft of ₹5 lakhs today and undertakes to deposit a sum of ₹5 lakhs more by way of RTGS towards pre-deposit. That makes a total payment of ₹10 lakhs. The amount would come to more than the minimum of 25% contemplated under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶20

Taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration, I accept the amount of ₹10 lakhs as sufficient for payment towards the pre-deposit.

¶21

The dispossession scheduled today shall stand deferred till further order on the basis of the said payment being made by the Appellants.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The

¶25

¶26

Respondents are at liberty to file a reply in the appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶27

Post on 15.11.2023 for reporting compliance regarding the payment.

¶28

Sd/Chairperson

¶29

mks-04

¶30

Vinod Girdharilal Jaiswal v. Authorized officer Shriram Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Girdharilal Jaiswal v. Authorized officer Shriram Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s B J Grain and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Ashima Limited versus Hdfc Bank Limited & Anr.

Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait Bsc versus Hdfc Bank Limited & Anr.

M/s. Swastik corporation through its proprietor govind surendra mundada versus Indusind Bank Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Singha Singh Roy and Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Mayur S/o. Madhukar Amsule and another&rsquo;s versus Authorized Officer

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

M/s B J Grain and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Ashima Limited versus Hdfc Bank Limited & Anr.

Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait Bsc versus Hdfc Bank Limited & Anr.

M/s. Swastik corporation through its proprietor govind surendra mundada versus Indusind Bank Limited

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Singha Singh Roy and Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Mayur S/o. Madhukar Amsule and another&amp;rsquo;s versus Authorized Officer

Shri. Mayur S/o. Madhukar Amsule and another’s versus Authorized Officer