Partly allowed

Sonali Sunil Biradar v. Janata Sahakari Bank Limited

DRAT15 Dec 2023IA/814/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal fixed a mandatory pre-deposit of INR 4.30 lakhs as a condition for entertaining an appeal against SARFAESI measures involving possession of secured assets and account classification as NPA.

What did the court decide?

Fixed a pre-deposit of INR 4.30 lakhs for entertaining the appeal and deferred possession of secured assets pending payment.

Sonali Sunil Biradar versus Janata Sahakari Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 814/2023(WoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 2234/2023 Between

¶2

Sonali Sunil Biradar … Appellant/s

¶3

V/s.

¶4

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. …Respondent/s

¶5

Mr Varun Gramopadhye, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Vijay V. Chandavale, Advocate for Respondent Bank appeared through Video Conferencing.

¶6

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed on 13.12.2023 by the Appellant seeking urgent relief.

¶7

The Appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 12.12.2023 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No.2617 of 2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 656 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T.) which challenges 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 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short). The Ld. Presiding Officer had in the impugned order observed that there was an outstanding amount of ₹4,55,000/- to regularise the account which was classified as a non-performing asset (NPA) and therefore, directed the Appellant to deposit the said amount within a stipulated time failing which liberty was granted to the Respondent

¶8

¶9

bank to proceed with taking possession of the secured asset. The Appellant was also directed to come up with a positive OTS proposal within a month to settle the entire dues. The Appellant is aggrieved and hence in appeal.

¶10

To entertain the appeal, the Appellant will first have to comply with the mandatory provisions of pre-deposit under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The Appellant has raised several contentions challenging the Sarfaesi measures starting from the classification of the debt as an NPA. There were two demand notices issued. The latest demand notice was issued on 29.11.2022 under Sec. 13(2) demanding a sum of ₹9,57,700/- as of 31.10.2022. It is contended that the bifurcation of the interest and principal amount due has not been stated in the notice and thereby violating the provisions under Sec. 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. It is further contended that the application filed before the District Magistrate under Sec. 14 does not enclose the certificate classifying the debt as NPA. Therefore, the said application is also faulty.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent vehemently opposes this application stating that the Applicant is not entitled to any indulgence of getting the mandatory pre-deposit reduced. It is pointed out that there is no plea of any financial strain pleaded in the application. The prima facie case is also not pleaded. It is submitted that the only plea taken up by the Appellant in the application is that he has paid ₹1 lakh in the case to a recovery agent of the Respondent bank on 28.02.2022. That would, however, not enable him to come up with the prima facie case, submitted the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Bank.

¶12

¶13

The Appellant has not come up with any plea with regard to having a strong prima facie case. It will have to be verified whether the classification of the account as NPA was done inappropriately and where there is any fault in the notice issued under Sec. 13(2).

¶14

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I direct the Appellant to deposit a sum of ₹4,30,000/- as pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal failing which the Appeal shall stand dismissed. 7. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant undertakes to deposit a sum of ₹2 lakhs today through NEFT/RTGS by 3.00 pm. The balance of ₹2.30 lakhs shall be payable within three weeks i.e. on or before 05.01.2023.

¶15

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

¶16

On the payment of the aforesaid amount before 3.00 pm today, the possession intended to be taken shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing.

¶17

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 after that to be renewed periodically.

¶18

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.

¶19

Post on 08.01.2024 for reporting compliance regarding payment.

¶20

mks-05

¶21

Sonali Sunil Biradar v. Janata Sahakari Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonali Sunil Biradar v. Janata Sahakari 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

Central Bank of India versus Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Central Bank of India versus Padmashri Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.

Stone Yuug versus Bank of Baroda

Nitin C Thakkar versus State Bank of India

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited versus Vivaswan Industries and Ors.

Nitin C Thakkar versus State Bank of India