Disposed

Rajendrasingh Lashkarsingh Gahlen v. India Infoline Finance Ltd.

DRAT16 Jan 2024IA/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This tribunal decided an interim application in an appeal against a DRT auction order. The court directed the appellants to deposit a partial amount as pre-deposit before entertaining the appeal. Consequently, the taking of possession of secured assets was deferred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit ₹75 lakhs in installments. Possession of secured assets deferred to the next date of hearing.

Rajendrasingh Lashkarsingh Gahlen versus India Infoline… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No. 31/2024 (WoD)

¶2

Appeal on Diary No. 2087/2023

¶3

Between

¶4

Rajendrasingh S/o Lashkarsingh Gahlen & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s. The Authorized Officer, …Respondent/s India Infoline Finance Ltd.

¶5

An Advocate for the Appellant is present.

¶6

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

¶7

The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 27.10.2023 in Interim Application (I.A.) No. 2188/2023 in Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 183/2023 which is for condonation of delay in filing the S.A. u/s 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T.). The Appellants had filed the I.A. for interim relief to protect the possession of the secure assets which was declined. M.A. No. 183/2023 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the S.A.

¶8

According to the Appellants they have sound grounds for maintaining the S.A. It is stated that there is no bifurcation of the principal, interest and other charges due in the demand notice in

¶9

¶10

compliance with sub-section (3) of section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. The Appellants have also challenged the measures taken u/s 13 (4) and section 14.

¶11

However, admittedly there is a delay in filing S.A. which could not have been entertained without first condoning the delay. The application for condoning the delay is still under consideration by the D.R.T. and therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellants have a prima facie case. The Appellants have also not established that they are under financial strain and therefore, they are not entitled to any relief of getting the amount of the pre-deposit contemplated u/s 18 (1) reduced to the minimum of 25%. The auction sale notice had already been issued concerning the secured assets.

¶12

Notice has been served on the Respondent financial institution but no one appeared. The sale notice produced by the Appellants along with the appeal indicates that the amount of ₹1,72,92,562/- is due and outstanding as of 28.11.2017, the date of the demand notice, and interest also must have accrued on that. Once the notice for E-Auction is issued the amount together with the interest will have to be taken as the threshold amount. The total outstanding as of 05.10.2023 is shown as ₹2,05,40,396/- in the sale notice. The Appellants have made the payment of ₹27 lakhs directly to the Respondent financial institution following the order of the Hon’ble High Court of 08.11.2023. The Appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹75 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants undertakes to deposit a sum of ₹10 lakhs by 19.01.2024 and a balance of ₹65

¶13

¶14

lakhs shall be paid in two instalments within a gap of three weeks each, as stated hereunder.

¶15

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment of₹30,00,000/-	09.02.2024
2^ndInstalment of₹35,00,000/-	01.03.2024

¶16

Subject to deposit a sum of ₹10 lakhs, on or before 19.01.2024 the possession intended to be taken by the Respondent shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing.

¶17

Default in payment of any amount/instalment shall entail dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Post on 22.01.2024 for reporting compliance

¶22

psa-24

¶23

Rajendrasingh Lashkarsingh Gahlen v. India Infoline Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendrasingh Lashkarsingh Gahlen v. India Infoline 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

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Private Limited versus Pandurang Solanke

Venkateshwara Industrial Services Private Limited versus Pandurang Solanke

Sandip Narendrakumar Patel versus Axis Bank

Ms Norton Industries versus Punjab National Bank

Shri Manojbhai Ramanbhai Nair versus Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd. and Ors.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Ltd.