Dismissed

Rbl Bank Limited v. Aarti Sandeep Gade

DRAT15 May 2023MISC APPEAL/61/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the bank's appeal as largely infructuous since the respondent paid the deposition sum, preventing possession. It directed the lower tribunal to dispose of the posted stay petition without granting further extension for payment, leaving no embargo on the bank's SARFAESI measures.

What did the court decide?

Bank directed to file a fresh notice under Sec. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act; Stay Petition to be disposed of expeditiously without further time extension.

Rbl Bank Limited versus Aarti Sandeep Gade — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.237/2023

¶2

¶3

Misc Appeal No.61/2023

Between

RBL Bank Ltd.

… Appellant/s

V/s.

Aarti Sandeep Gade & Anr.

¶9

…Respondent/s

¶10

Mr. Meghnath Navlani, along with Mr. Rajesh Nagori, Advocate for Appellant.

¶11

An Advocate for the Respondent is present.

¶12

This is an appeal filed by the Defendant Bank aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune ( D.R.T ) dated 02.03.2023 in I.A. No. 408/2023 in S.A. No. 582/2022 wherein action intended to be taken by the Appellant Bank with regard to the secured assets on 03.03.2023 was directed to be stalled on condition of payment of ₹ 5,00,000/-. I am told by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties across the bar that the S.A. now stands posted to 03.06.2023 for further consideration. The possession has not been taken in view of the fact that ₹ 5,00,000/- has been paid by the Respondent borrower to the bank.

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant Bank submits that as of date there is an outstanding dues of more than ₹ 1.75

¶14

¶15

crores. Respondent does not admit the amount due and according to the Respondent, the amount is just above ₹ 1.25 crores since there has been some payment made by the Respondent after issuance of the notice u/s. 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also pointed out that OTS proposals have been submitted and the same has been rejected by the Respondent Bank.

¶16

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent also submits that specific properties have been surrendered to the Appellant Bank and they delayed the sale of that property resulting in a delay in the appropriation of the amount towards the debt which has, in turn, resulted in the accumulation of interest to the detriment of the Respondent borrower. The amount due is more than ₹ 1.25 crores admittedly, and therefore, the direction given by the Ld. Presiding Officer to stall taking over of possession on payment of the meagre amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- does not appear to be reasonable.

¶17

In case the Respondent is serious about settling the entire dues, substantial payment will have to be made. Only then can a stay to the Sarfaesi measures be granted by the D.R.T. Since the appeal has almost become infructuous because the possession could not be taken on 03.03.2023 as scheduled, further steps will have to be taken by the Appellant Bank to take possession of the secured assets. There is no embargo on the Appellant Bank taking further measures under the SARFAESI Act against the secured assets. The Ld. Presiding Officer is directed to go on and dispose of the S.A. itself as expeditiously as possible without granting any further time to make payments and stall the Sarfaesi measures.

¶18

¶19

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of as expeditiously as possible as agreed by the Counsel appearing for both parties.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

rm-21

¶22

Rbl Bank Limited v. Aarti Sandeep Gade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rbl Bank Limited v. Aarti Sandeep Gade

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

Govinda Choudhary versus Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

Mr Baburao Tukaram Navsare versus State Bank of India and Ors.

The Administerator of the Specified Undertaking of the Unit Trust of India versus Mahakali Flyover Company Ltd. ( Mfcl )

Rbl Bank Limited versus Aarti Sandeep Gade

Bank of Baroda versus Ace Heater Corporation and Ors.

Mr. Usmani Amjad Mukhtar and Anr. versus Hdfc Ltd.