Disposed

naina D/o. Ashok Salve v. Aavas Financiers Ltd.

DRAT3 Jan 2023REGULAR APPEAL/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application regarding a stay petition filed in an appeal against a DRAT order, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 30 lakhs as pre-deposit under section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, split into two instalments, to secure a stay on further recovery measures.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 30 lakhs in two equal instalments of Rs. 15 lakhs each; grant of stay on further SARFAESI measures upon payment of the first instalment.

naina D/o. Ashok Salve versus Aavas Financiers Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 656/2022 (WoD)

¶3

In Appeal on Diary No. 1319/2022

¶4

Between

¶5

Naina D/O. Ashok Salve … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Aavas Financiers Ltd & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr Anurag Jain, i/b Ms Mumtaz Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr Vivek Patil, Advocate for Respondent.

¶7

-: Order dated: 03/01/2023:-

¶8

This is an application for waiver of pre-deposit filed in this Appeal impugning the judgment and order of learned Presiding Officer D.R.T., Aurangabad dated 04.11.2022 in SA No. 173/2021. The S.A. was dismissed and challenges raised to the Sarfaesi measures were disregarded. The Appellant seeks indulgence of this Tribunal to reduce the mandatory amount payable u/s 18 (1) to the minimum invoking the discretion under the 3rd proviso to section 18 (1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(‘SARFAESI Act’, for short).

¶9

The Appellant had pleaded that the notice u/s 13 (2) dated 26.03.2021 was not served upon her and that it was only published in accordance with the Rules. It is also submitted that the account was classified as NPA in violation of the guidelines issued by RBI.

¶10

The learned Presiding Officer has not considered any of those objections which were raised in the application challenging the

¶11

¶12

Sarfaesi measures. The Appellant submits that she is under financial strain because her source of earning income is from her running coaching classes, which was adversely affected because of the Covid pandemic. The classes were disrupted and her income ceased. She has produced the income tax returns for three years, pertaining to 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2022-2023 which indicate that her income in 2019-2020 during the hike of the pandemic was ₹ 10 lakhs and it has now reduced to ₹ 4.77 lakhs during the last two assessment years.

¶13

The Appellant, therefore, prays that the pre-deposit amount may be reduced to the minimum. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that even for regularizing the loan amount of ₹ 33 lakhs would be required and therefore, the Appellant will have to deposit an amount as pre-deposit which would substantially take care of the regularization of the loan if some effort is made. 5. After having heard both sides and considered the pleading and the records available, I determine that the amount due from the Appellant would be more than ₹1.13 Crores and therefore, even if indulgence is shown to the Appellant she would have to deposit a minimum of ₹ 30 lakhs as pre-deposit. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 30 lakhs into two equal instalments. The first instalment of ₹ 15 lakhs shall be paid within three weeks, payable on or before 24.01.2023 and the second instalment of ₹15 lakhs shall be paid within another three weeks therefrom, payable on or before 14.02.2023. Default of the payment of the amount shall entail dismissal of the Appeal.

¶14

¶15

On the payment of the first instalment, the Appellant would be entitled to a stay of the further Sarfaesi measures.

¶16

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Post on 25.01.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

psa-03

¶22

naina D/o. Ashok Salve v. Aavas Financiers Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

naina D/o. Ashok Salve v. Aavas Financiers 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

Bhanji s/o Bhoiraj Nisar versus Indian Bank

Ramnath Singh versus Punjab National Bank

Bhanji s/o Bhoiraj Nisar versus Allahabad bank

Canara Bank versus Woodman Venneers Pvt. Ltd.

naina D/o. Ashok Salve versus Aavas Financiers Ltd.

Sandip Patel and Anr. versus Authorized Officer Bajaj Finance Limited