Disposed

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi v. Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private Limited

DRAT28 Apr 2023MISC APPEAL/130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRAT Mumbai disposed of an interim application seeking stay on SARFAESI measures. The Court directed appellants to deposit ₹35,00,000 to secure the stay, noting previous default on undertaking payments.

What did the court decide?

Directed to deposit ₹15,00,000 first instalment by 12.05.2023; balance ₹20,00,000 in three extra two-week instalments; upon compliance, stay of further SARFAESI measures granted.

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 266/2023(WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 429/2023

¶4

Between

¶5

Gruh Suvidha Through its Prop. Shri Shantilal … Appellant/s rs. Kunjulal Rathi & O V/s. Omkara Assets R e construction Pvt. Ltd. … R espondent/s Mr. Radhe Agra w al, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. V. Deshpan d e, i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., Advocate for the Respondent.

¶6

-: Order dated: 28/04/2023:-

¶7

The matter is ta k en up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Appellants seeki n g urgent relief. The Appellan t s are in appeal impugning the o r der dated 22.02.2023 in I.A. 241/ 2 023 in M.A. No. 27/2023 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpu r (D.R.T) wherein the Appellant ha d sought a stay with regard to the S arfaesi measures initiated by the 1^s^t Respondent financial institution. 2. There was a debt due of ₹ 94,58,846 as of th e date of filing of this application. Hence, the Ld. Presiding Of f ice directed the Appellants to c o me up with a proposal to p a y off the debt. Accordingly, a p r oposal had been submitted wher e in the Appellant had undertaken to pay a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/forthwith, and a balance of ₹ 15, 0 0,000/- on 13.03.2023 the remai n ing amount was

¶8

¶9

agreed to be paid in five instalments within a period of six months. According to that undertaking, the Ld. Presiding Officer directed conditional status-quo to be maintained and it was also made clear that on of non-compliance of the undertaking, the status-quo order shall stands vacated without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶10

The Appellants had paid ₹ 10,00,000/- as agreed but the subsequent payments were defaulted, and hence, the stay was vacated. The amount due from the Appellants as of the date as per the statements submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the 1^st Respondent is ₹ 87,15,634/- after giving credit to ₹ 10,00,000/which was paid by the Appellants.

¶11

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the correctness of the amount which is claimed is challenged and that the S.A. has been filed challenging all the Sarfaesi measures right from notice u/s. 13 (2) to the order passed u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. It is submitted that the Ld. Presiding Officer has not gone into the merits of the S.A. On the basis of the undertaking, the impugned order was made. According to the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants it is not a fair practice to insist on such a deposit by forcing them to file an undertaking.

¶12

Although the Tribunal can insist on certain conditions for granting the stay, in the instant case, the merits of the case have not been discussed at all.

¶13

After hearing both sides I, find that the Appellants would have to, in the first instance, cross the hurdle of making a pre-deposit. It is submitted that the predecessor Bank of the first Respondent

¶14

¶15

financial institution had agreed to the OTS proposal submitted by the Appellants but subsequently, the assignee withdrew from it and the OTS proposal was allegedly rejected.

¶16

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that this is also a ground for the Appellant to challenge the Sarfaesi measures. The Appellants had stated that they are under financial strain but there is no specific material to support the contentions regarding their financial strain.

¶17

After having anxiously considered the entire facts and circumstances the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 35,00,000/- in instalments. The first instalment of 15,00,000/- shall be deposit within two weeks on or before 12.05.2023 and the balance of ₹ 20,00,000/- shall be paid in three equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each. i.e. on or before 26.05.2023, 09.06.2023, and 23.6.2023.

¶18

Failing to deposit the amount shall entail the dismissal of the Appeal without further instructions. In case of deposit of the first instalment, the Appellant shall be entitled to a stay of the further Sarfaesi measures.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

Respondent is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶24

Post on 15.05.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶25

Sd/Chairperson

¶26

rm-10

¶27

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi v. Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi v. Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Shashikant & Co.

Bank of Baroda versus M/s Sainath Paper Mill

Bank of Baroda & Anr. versus M/s Gujarat Agro

M/s Boisi versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Bhupendra Reshamwala and Ors. versus Dcb Bank Limited

Gruh Suvidha Through Its Prop. Shri Shantilala Kunjulala Rathi versus Omkara Assets Reconstructions Private Limited