Mohd Irfan v. prathama up Gramin bank
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge imposed a 2-month time limit on the Debt Recovery Tribunal to decide a pending second appeal. The judge allowed the appellant's waiver application for any balance dues due to a settlement and stayed the execution of a possession restoration order.
What did the court decide?
Two months time granted to DRT to decide second appeal; waiver application allowed; restoration of possession stayed pending disposal of appeal.
Appeal Dy. No. 1197/2022 Date: 03.01.2023
Mohd. Irfan Vs. Prathama UP Gramin Bank
Present: Shri S. K. Gupta, counsel for the appellant,
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the interim order dated 16.12.2022 passed by the DRT, Dehradun in S.A. No. 16/2022, whereby the appellant has been directed to restore the possession without any delay, after that the appellant shall be heard in relation to his grievance.
The report of the registrar dated 02.01.2023 shows that no pre-deposit has been made, waiver application has been filed and as per notice dated 03.09.2021, the dues as per demand notice dated 25.08.2017 was Rs. 25,88,532/- plus interest. The report further shows that the appellant had deposited Rs. 24,99,500/- pursuant to the settlement as mentioned in the waiver application as well as the Bank has also recovered a sum of Rs. 55.92 lacs from auction sale of the property.
Considering the fact that the appellant, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this order, has already deposited Rs. 24,99,500/- against the dues of Rs. 25,88,532/-, the waiver application is allowed. Since the S.A. is pending consideration and as per report of the registrar dated 02.01.2023, as aforementioned, some settlement was entered into between the parties, pursuant to which Rs. 24,99,500/- was deposited by the appellant, but it appears that the property has been auctioned thereafter.
Be that as it may, the appeal stands finally disposed off with direction to the DRT concerned to consider and decide the S.A. No. 16/2022 in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties most expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till the disposal of S.A. No. 16/2022, the direction regarding restoration of possession may not be insisted upon.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the waiver application regarding pre-deposit should be allowed considering the settlement and partial recovery.
Whether the appellant should be directed to restore possession pending the disposal of the second appeal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mohd. Irfan
- respondent
Prathama UP Gramin Bank
Coram
R. D. Khare
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 · LD Registrar
- Order 2 — this page · Rajesh Dayal Khare
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court