Dismissed

Hanume Gowda v. The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited

DRAT14 Nov 2023REGULAR APPEAL/49/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Chennai refused a request to reduce the statutory deposit for an appeal under the SARFAESI Act. The Court directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the claimed secured amount as one sum sufficient for both appeals filed on the same account.

What did the court decide?

appellant directed to deposit Rs.1,40,13,265/- as statutory deposit within two weeks; appeals stand rejected if deposit is not made.

Hanume Gowda versus The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

IA 357/2023 in A.IR:1013/2023

¶3

Hanume Gowda V/S The Bangalore City Co Operative Bank Ltd

¶4

14/11/2023

¶5

These Applications are filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeals.

¶6

The Appeals A.IR (SA) :1013/2023 and A.IR (SA) :1027/2023 are filed by same party in respect of same account. SA 504/2022 is filed challenging the Sale Notice dated 17.11.2022 and SA 205/2021 is filed challenging Section 14 Order and aggrieved by the Orders of DRT-II, Bengaluru, these two Appeals are filed.

¶7

Heard both sides.

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant submitted, demand of Secured Creditor is Rs.2,80,26,529/- as per Notice dated 02.11.2019 issued under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. He further submitted, considering the reasons stated in the Affidavit filed in support of Petition, statutory deposit may be reduced, for entertaining the Appeals.

¶9

Advocate for Respondent Bank opposed and submitted, no grounds are made out for reduction of statutory deposit and Petitioner/Appellant has to deposit 50% of amount claimed by Secured Creditor.

¶10

I have perused material papers and impugned Orders dated 28.06.2023 in both the Appeals.

¶11

Admittedly, no payments are made after 13(2) Notice, therefore, the amount indicated in 13(2) Notice i.e. Rs.2,80,26,529/- has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of statutory deposit. Further, as Appeals are in respect of same account, one deposit would meet requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. As Petitioner/Appellant failed to make out any valid grounds for reduction of statutory deposit, Petitioner/Appellant shall deposit 50% of above said amount, for entertaining the Appeals.

¶12

For the above reasons, Petitioner/Appellant shall deposit 50% of Rs.2,80,26,529/-, which comes to Rs.1,40,13,264.50p, (Rounded off to Rs.1,40,13,265/-), within a period of two weeks from today i.e., on or before 28.11.2023.

¶13

It is made clear that failure to deposit of above amount, the Appeals shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioner/Appellant, Registrar is to invest

¶14

the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed.

¶15

Post the case on 29.11.2023, for compliance of payment.

¶16

Sd/Chairperson

Hanume Gowda v. The Bangalore City Co. Operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanume Gowda v. The Bangalore City Co. Operative 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

P Jacquline Marahatham versus State Bank of India

Mr S Ramesh versus Sree Subramanyeswara Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Tmt Vijaya versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Sri M Nagaraj

Vijaya Bank versus State Bank of India

Shri.v.Jayaprakash versus Hdfc Bank