In an appeal under the RDB Act, the Tribunal rejected a request for total waiver of mandatory pre-deposit on appeal. Finding the appellant's prima facie case insufficient, the Court directed a partial deposit of ₹10 lakhs.
Appellant directed to deposit ₹10 lakhs as pre-deposit in two instalments; appeal adjudication suspended until deposit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson
M.A. No. 66/2010 (WoD)
In
Appeal No. 57/2010
Between
Izabel F Nunes … Appellant/s V/s. Union Bank of India …Respondent/s
I.S. Thakur, i/b M/s. Global Juris Consults, Advocate for Appellants.
Ms Aparna D. Jagtap, i/b Mrs Uma Fadia, Advocate for Respondent Bank.
The Misc. Application is filed under Sec. 21 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks & Financial Institution Act, 1993 (‘RDDB&FI Act’, for short) for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal.
1
01.04.2004 till 16.04.2007, the date on which the sale proceeds of the first defendant company were appropriated towards the loan. That apart, a sum of ₹2,70,998/-was also directed to be paid towards term loan together with interest @14% per annum with effect from 01.10.2001 till the date of filing of the O.A. and thereafter @6% per annum till realisation. It was also decreed that a claim to the extent of ₹25 lakhs together with interest is to be realised from the sale of the property mortgaged by the fourth defendant. A recovery certificate was issued in favour of the Bank. The Appellant is aggrieved because her residential house is being proceeded against for realisation of debt.
2
director. She is the daughter-in-law of the Appellant. The company was later made a public limited company. It is the first defendant company which had availed the loan from the original applicant Bank through the second defendant and the third defendant as directors. Mortgages were created in favour of the Bank with regard to the office premises of the company and the residential house of the fourth defendant/Appellant. Letters of guarantee were allegedly executed by the guarantors. The Appellant’s deceased son who was the husband of the second defendant had also stood as guarantor. 6. On defaulting repayment of the debt, the bank initiated measures under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short) and also filed the O.A. for the realisation of debt under the provisions of the RDDB & FI Act. Defendants Nos. 2 & 3 contested the O.A. by filing a common written statement. The Appellant as the fourth defendant filed a written statement denying the liability and also contended that she has not executed any documents in favour of the Bank. It is contended that she has nothing to do with the company or its affairs. A plea of limitation is also taken. The Appellant had also filed S.A. No. 35 of 2007 against the Bank challenging the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Bank against her property. The O.A. as well as the S.A. were allowed by a common judgment. The Appellant is aggrieved because the O.A. was allowed and is, therefore, in appeal.
3
obtained. Opinions regarding some of the signatures were inconclusive while some of the disputed signatures were confirmed as that of the Appellant.
4
be payable within three weeks therefrom, on or before 27.06.2023. In default of the payment of any instalments on time, the appeal shall stand dismissed without any further reference of the Tribunal.
Post on 07.06.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment of 1st instalment.
Sd/-
Chairperson
mks- 1
5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDDB&FI Act can be totally waived for an aged appellant with a pension.
Whether the appellant has sufficient means to pay the mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal.
Whether the prima facie case established by the appellant warrants a total waiver of pre-deposit under the RDDB&FI Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Izabel F Nunes
Union Bank of India
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
5 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
