Allowed

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

DRAT12 Dec 2024IA/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants challenged a DRt. order requiring pre-deposit for SARFAESI protection. After court-deposited amounts were paid to the bank and treated as pre-deposit by the Supreme Court, the tribunal rejected the refund claim, adjusting the payment against debt and granting four months for the Securitisation Application disposal.

What did the court decide?

Refund of pre-deposit rejected; amount adjusted against debt; interim protection retained; S.A. to be disposed of within four months.

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others versus Tata… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 208/2024 (Stay) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 24/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr Pankaj Purway (through video-conferencing) along with Mr Dikshant Dudhane, Advocates for Appellants.

¶8

Mr Rajesh Nagori (through video-conferencing) along with Mr Shadab Siddiqui i/b Mr R. L. Motwani, Advocates for Respondent.

¶9

-: Order dated: 12/12/2024:-

¶10

The appellants have come up with this Misc. Appeal challenging the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T.) dated 01.09.2022 in I.A. No. 1575/2022 in Securitisation Application No. 26/2022 (S.A.) wherein a direction was given to the appellants to deposit some amount for granting protection as against the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent financial institution for recovery of debts allegedly due from the appellants. The appellants could not deposit the entire amount as a result of which the interim protection granted stood vacated and therefore, the appellants are aggrieved and in appeal.

¶11

When the appeal was taken up for hearing in I.A. No. 451/2022 vide order dated 26.09.2022, the appellants were directed to deposit

¶12

¶13

the sum of ₹ 1 crore as pre-deposit towards which the appellants deposited ₹ 20 lakhs and for the balance ₹ 80 lakhs, time was granted for payment to be made in two equal instalments. A Writ Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench and an extension of time was granted for depositing the balance amount. Thereafter, the appellants approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition No. 2289/2023 (S.L.P.) and vide order dated 09.02.2023, the appellants were granted time to deposit the balance ₹20 lakhs by 13.02.2023 and the entire amount was to be paid in instalments before 31.05.2023. The interim order was directed to continue till 31.05.2023 subject to the contention that this amount will be paid in instalments. The amounts have been paid and there was also an order to this Tribunal to take an appropriate view as to whether the petition should be granted any further interim direction or not. Thereafter the S.L.P. was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2023 and it was directed that the amount of ₹ 20 lakhs be paid by 30.06.2023. The amounts were directed to be paid to the respondent financial institution and were to be treated as pre-deposit according to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Now the entire amount as directed by this Tribunal has been paid.

¶14

Interim reliefs to the appellants granting protection from the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent financial institution were granted subject to the deposit made.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that since the deposit made by the appellants is to be treated as pre-deposit vide order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the said amount together with

¶16

¶17

the accrued interest is directed to be returned to them. I cannot agree with this argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants. Because the impugned order which was challenged before this Tribunal was regarding the payment of the amount as a condition for granting an interim relief and therefore, when that amount has been paid directly to the respondent financial institution, it cannot be ordered to be refunded. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, therefore, submits that what was directed to be paid is only ₹ 1 crore. But there is an excess of ₹ 80 lakhs more paid by the appellants to the respondent and therefore, that amount has been directed to be repaid. The appellants are entitled to a refund of that excess amount which has been paid and also interest on ₹ 1 crore, submits the Ld. Counsel for the appellants.

¶18

It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed the payments to be made to the respondent to be considered as predeposit. But nothing had been deposited by the appellants before this Tribunal to be refunded. The amounts have been paid directly to the respondent as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The demand notice issued under Sec.13(2) dated 21.05.2021 demands an amount of ₹4,00,53,642.10. Subsequent interest also must have been accrued on that amount. The interim relief granted shall, therefore, be retained. The entire amount has been paid to the respondent, it cannot be directed to be refunded just because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not directed the appellants to pay the separate amount to this Tribunal u/s 18(1) as pre-deposit and had just directed that the amount paid by the appellants to the respondent be considered as pre-

¶19

¶20

deposit. Hence, I do not think that it is possible to order a refund of the amount with interest. In view of the fact that there are huge outstanding dues to be paid to the respondent financial institution, the amount paid by the appellants shall be adjusted towards the debt due and the interim order be retained till disposal of the S.A. The D.R.T. is directed to dispose of the S.A. as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶21

Sd/Chairperson

¶22

nrp- 25

¶23

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Anil S/o Shantaram Sangtani and others v. Tata Capital Financial Services 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

Similar cases

Ramnivas Jagnnath Mandhani versus Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada

The Chikhli Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd. versus Murlidhar Ramgopal Mundada

Ms Repute Foods Private Limited and Ors. versus Central Bank of India

Re Infra a Partnership Firm and Ors. versus Central Bank of India

Mr Pravin Dhirajlal Gediya versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs Surbhi Vatsal Somani versus Bank of Baroda