The DRAT entertained an appeal on initial principles against an order declining time for deposit. Partial payment of 40 lakhs out of 82 lakhs was accepted, leading to a deferral of asset possession and filing of a reply.
Debts and recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmedabad order, dated 22.02.2024, in M.A. No. 59 of 2024 in S.A. No. 136 of 2023 is disposed of pending reply.
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 I.A. No. 140/2024(WoD)
In Appeal on Diary No. 381/2024
Between
Prakash Rajgor & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank. …Respondent/s Mr. Dhrumit Chauhan, Advocate for Appellants. An Advocate for the Respondent is present.
-: Order dated: 23/02/2024:-
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by Appellants for seeking urgent relief.
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 22.02.2024 in M.A. No. 59/2024 in S.A. No. 136/2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ahmadabad (D.R.T) whereby the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant an extension of time to deposit the amount of ₹ 82 lakhs which was undertaken to be paid within a stipulated time. The Appellants could pay only ₹8 lakhs towards that undertaken amount and the balance could not be paid within the time agreed. There was a delay in filing the application which was condoned by the Ld. Presiding Officer, but the application for an extension of time was declined. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal.
1
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (“SARFAESI Act”, for short). The amount outstanding as of today is ₹ 82 lakhs, states the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank.
2
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.
Post on 11.03.2024 before Registrar.
Sd/Chairperson
rm-29
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal under the SARFAESI Act should be entertained given partial compliance with the pre-deposit requirement.
Whether possession of secured assets should be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prakash Rajgor & Ors.
Authorized Officer, South Indian Bank
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
