Disposed

Shri Ganesh S/o Sahebrao Wani v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

DRAT16 Oct 2023MISC APPEAL/50/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT, Mumbai, disposed of the appeal by directing appellants to deposit ₹90,00,000 in term deposits. Upon immediate payment of ₹50,00,000, statutory possession was deferred pending full compliance. Failure to pay in instalments results in dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Directed deposit of ₹90,00,000 in term deposits; remaining possession schedule deferred immediately upon payment of ₹50,00,000.

Shri Ganesh S/o Sahebrao Wani versus the Chikhli Urban Co-Op… — Company and Corporate | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 691/2023(WoD)

¶2

Appeal on Diary No. 1848/2023 Between Ganesh S/o Sahebrao Wani & Anr. … Appellant/s

¶3

V/s.

¶4

The Chikhali Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd & …Respondent/s

¶5

Ors.

¶6

Mr. Charles D’Souza, along with Mr. Vishal Tambe, Advocate for the Appellants.

¶7

Mr. Amit C., Advocate for Respondents.

¶8

-: Order dated: 16/10/2023:-

¶9

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 05.10.2023 in S.A. No. 935/2023 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T) wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any protection in favour of the Appellants from the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent Co-operative Bank for the realisation of debt allegedly due from the Appellants.

¶10

The Appellants would contend that they are agriculturists and that the loan which was availed in 2017 was being regularly paid by them without any default till the pandemic of COVID set in. They were not able to sell their grains as a result of which they defaulted in payment. The debt was classified as NPA on 30.09.2022 and consequentially the demand notice u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued demanding a sum of ₹ 2,04,00,000/- from the Appellants. An order u/s. 14 was obtained from the District Magistrate on 19.04.2023 and the physical possession of the secured assets is

¶11

¶12

intended to be taken today.

¶13

The Appellants would contend that they have a strong prima facie case for the reason that they are not defaulters. They had reason to commit the default because of the pandemic and thereafter they also paid ₹ 25,00,000/- towards the debt which indicates their intentions to clear the debt. The notice u/s. 13 (2) is challenged on the ground that the name and designation of the authorized officer have not been stated. The Appellants plead that they are under financial strain. The IT returns have been produced to substantiate the fact.

¶14

Per-contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank has vehemently opposed the application stating that as of date, the dues are ₹ 2,04,00,000/-. The Appellants would seek the indulgence of this Tribunal to get the mandatory deposit contemplated u/s. 18 (1) reduced to the minimum of 25% to which the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that they do not have any reason to get the amount reduced.

¶15

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the Appellants have attempted to pay a certain amount after the receipt of the notice u/s. 13(2) but subsequently the amount has gone up owing to the accrual of interest. The Appellants do not have a very strong case in challenging the Sarfaesi measures though they had succeeded in establishing that they are under some financial strain, looking at the income tax returns which they have filed.

¶16

The Appellants are therefore directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 90,00,000/- as pre-deposit. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the

¶17

¶18

Appellants submits that he is producing a demand draft of ₹ 50,00,000/- today. The balance of ₹ 40,00,000/- shall be paid in two equal instalments within a gap of three weeks, as stated hereunder.

¶19

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment₹20,00,000/-	06.11.2023
2^ndInstalment₹20,00,000/-	27.11.2023

¶20

In view of the payment of ₹ 50,00,000/- today the possession schedule to be taken today shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing. Default in payment of any of the instalments entails in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal. 8. The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Post on 07.11.2023 for reporting compliance regarding 1^st instalment

¶24

rm-4

¶25

Shri Ganesh S/o Sahebrao Wani v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ganesh S/o Sahebrao Wani v. the Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank 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

Uco Bank versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

Mrs. Priti Viraj Mehta & Ors. versus The Cosmos Co-op Bank Ltd. & Anr.

J M Financial Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. A.J. Modi & Sons & Ors.

Nisha Krishankumar Mansinghka versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

M/S Maven Industries Ltd. and Ors. versus Uco Bank

Ms a B Waluj versus Recovery Offcer Drt I and Anr.