Disposed

Salil Vilasrao Shah v. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.

DRAT23 Apr 2024IA/274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 8,41,000 as pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to entertain the appeal, holding their prior submissions implied settlement and no waiver of deposit existed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appellants to deposit Rs. 8,41,000 as pre-deposit within specified timelines; failure to do so would result in dismissal of appeal.

Salil Vilasrao Shah versus Mahindra Rural Housing Finance… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 274/2024(WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No. 424/2024 Between

¶4

Salil Vilasrao Shah & Anr. … Appellant/s

¶5

V/s.

¶6

Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd. …Respondent/s Mr. Jayankar, Advocate for Appellants appeared through a Video Conference.

¶7

Mr. Chetan C. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent.

¶8

-: Order dated: 23/04/2024:-

¶9

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶10

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 07.12.2023 in I.A. No. 2722/2023 in S.A. No. 557/2022 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T) wherein, the Appellants had asked for protection from being dispossessed from the secured assets by the Respondent Financial Institution under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (“SARFAESI Act” for short).

¶11

The Appellants had earlier sought adjournment and protection from the D.R.T on payment of some amounts towards debt due. According to the Appellants they have paid ₹ 14,69,000/- in instalments towards the debt due and that would be more than 50% of the amount that is due therefore, they may be exonerated from

¶12

¶13

payment of any further amount as pre-deposit.

¶14

In the impugned order, the Ld. Presiding Officer had granted permission to the Respondent to take over possession of the property and accordingly, the Respondent had already taken possession of the property and the Appellants had been granted permission to continue in possession of the property as agents of the bank for three months. The Appellants had agreed to settle the entire debt due within the said three months and in default, they were directed to hand over vacant possession of the property to the Respondent.

¶15

It is this order, which has been challenged by the Appellants. It is pertinent to note that the order was passed on submissions made by the Appellants and even the earlier order would suggest that they had made payments to settle their loan account.

¶16

After having proceeded and agreed to settle the account unconditionally, the Appellants cannot fall back on their challenge to the Sarfaesi action initiated by the Respondent. There is a deemed waiver of the challenges which have been raised by them.

¶17

Anyhow, to entertain an appeal, the Appellants will have to comply with the mandatory provisions u/s. 18(1) of the SAARFAESI Act and make a pre-deposit. After accounting for the payment that has been made by the Appellants, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that there is still an outstanding balance of ₹ 19,82,361/- payable by the Appellants. The Appellants would therefore have to deposit 50% of that amount to

¶18

¶19

get this appeal entertained.

¶20

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that their possession of the property as agents of the bank may be protected and that they are willing to pay part of this amount. There is no plea of any financial strain in the application for waiver of deposit. A prima facie case is also not made out.

¶21

Because it is based on the submission which was being throughout made by the Appellants to settle the dispute that the impugned order was passed, there is no infirmity.

¶22

Under the circumstances, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 8,41,000/- as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. In case the Appellants are pay ₹ 4 lakhs by tomorrow before noon, the handing over possession to the Respondent shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing. The balance amount of ₹ 4,41,000/- shall be paid within two weeks i.e. on or before 08.05.2024. In default, the appeal shall stand dismissed, without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

¶26

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.

¶27

Post on 24.04.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the 1^st instalment.

¶28

Sd/Chairperson

¶29

rm-5

¶30

Salil Vilasrao Shah v. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salil Vilasrao Shah v. Mahindra Rural Housing Finance 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

Similar cases

Mennem Aviation and Hospitality Limited versus karvy Finance Service Ltd.

Mr. Vijay Vasant Prasade, Also in capacity of Proprietor of M/s. Prasade Constructions, versus India Infoline Home Finance Limited, Through its Authorised officer, (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956).

Shreeji Metals Partnership versus State Bank of India

Axis Bank versus Sandip Narendrakumar Patel

Yashoda Poultry Farm versus Union Bank of India

Punjab National Bank versus Satish Borakhadikar