Disposed

Vinod Madhukar Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

DRAT15 Jun 2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant appealed against dismissal of Securitisation Application due to insufficient fee payment. Tribunal rejected request to reduce pre-deposit below 25% due to lack of income proof, directing higher deposit as condition to entertain appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit ₹ 40,00,000/- as pre-deposit in tranches; appeal stay conditioned on payment.

Vinod Madhukar Bombale versus Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2023)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 387/2023(WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 964/2023

¶4

Between

¶5

Vinod Madhukar Bombale. … Appellant/s

¶6

V/s. Shri. Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Co-op. …Respondent/s Bank Ltd., Beed & Ors.

¶7

An Advocate for the Appellant is present.

¶8

Mr. Anant Vadgaonkar, along with Mr. Prashant Patil, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Appellant for seeking urgent relief. The Appellant has come up on appeal aggrieved by the order of dismissal of Securitisation Application (S.A.) at Diary No. 190/2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad (D.R.T). The Ld. Presiding Officer had directed the Appellant to make a deposit of ₹ 20,00,000/-. The Appellant had deposited ₹ 10,00,000/- but could not pay the remaining ₹ 10,00,000/- within the stipulated time and offered to pay only ₹ 5,00,000/- instead which was not acceptable to the Ld. Presiding Officer resulting in dismissal of the S.A. Hence, this appeal.

¶10

In order to entertain the appeal, the Appellant will have to first comply with the mandatory provisions of the second proviso to Sec.

¶11

¶12

18 (1) of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“ the SARFAESI Act”, for short).

¶13

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he has got a very good case on merits and that the S.A. was filed challenging the order of the District Magistrate u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act and that the Appellant did not get the notice of the Tahsildar for taking of delivery of the secured asset, and hence, there was a delay in filing the S.A. After due consideration of the reasons for the delay, the Ld. Presiding Officer had directed the Appellant to deposit a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- as a condition to condone the delay. An amount of ₹ 1.2 crores was outstanding towards the debt due from the Appellant, and therefore, I find that the prima facie, there does not appear to be any error in the order passed by the Ld. Presiding Officer on insisting on payment of ₹ 20,00,000/- before the delay could be condoned.

¶14

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that he is financially strained and unable to make a pre-deposit. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has contended that the business was adversely affected because of the pandemic and it is taking time for his business to revive. Even though there is a contention of financial strain pleaded by the Appellant, no documents to prove his income has been produced.

¶15

Under the circumstances it is not possible for this Tribunal to grant the indulgence of reducing the amount to a minimum of 25 %

¶16

¶17

exercising jurisdiction under the 3^rd proviso to Sec. 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶18

The Appellant is therefore directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 40,00,000/- as pre-deposit. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant undertakes to deposit ₹ 5,00,000/- towards that amount on 16.06.2023 by 1.00 p.m. The balance amount of ₹ 35,00,000/shall be deposited within six weeks on or before 28.07.2023, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismissed. On deposit of ₹ 5,00,000/as directed, the further Sarfaesi measures shall be stalled till the next date of hearing.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Post on 19.06.2023 for reporting compliance concerning the payment.

¶23

Sd/Chairperson

¶24

rm-4

¶25

Vinod Madhukar Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Madhukar Bombale v. Shri Chhatrapati Rajashri Shahu Urban Cooperative 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

Kusum M Agarwal versus Canara Bank

M/S Hiren Aluminium Ltd& Anr. versus Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Hiren Aluminium Limited & Anr. versus Axis Bank Ltd. & Ors.

Hotel Midtown versus Punjab National Bank

Shree Pharma Engineering Works and Ors. versus Indian Bank and Ors.

Bank of India versus Hemant Overseas Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.