Disposed

Mr Mukush Savjibhai Padsala v. Icici Bank Ltd.

DRAT20 Jun 2024IA/361/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appellant's interim application, ordering a pre-deposit before entertaining the appeal against DRT's order rejecting protection from SARFAESI measures and refusing amendment regarding possession notice.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit 8.5 lakhs; possession taking deferred pending payment of first 5 lakhs; appeal to be dismissed if deposit not made.

Mr Mukush Savjibhai Padsala versus Icici Bank Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present : Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A.No. 361/2024(WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.1054/2024 Between

¶4

Mukesh Savjibhai Padsala … Appellant/s V/s.

¶5

ICICI Bank Ltd. through Authorised Officer. …Respondent/s An Advocate for the Appellant is present. Mr. R. L. Motwani, Advocate for Respondent.

¶6

-: Order dated: 20/06/2024:-

¶7

The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 16.04.2024 in I.A. No. 1029/2024 in S.A. No. 15/2024 on the files of Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Ahmedabad (D.R.T) declining to grant any protection to the appellant against the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of debt under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (“ the SARFAESI Act” for short). The appellant is aggrieved and hence, in appeal.

¶8

The appellant had filed I.A. No. 1029/2024 seeking to incorporate an amendment about the possession notice dated 04.04.2024 in consequence of the order passed u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act taking physical possession of the property. The Ld. Presiding Officer observed that since, the order u/s. 14 has been challenged, the subsequent issuance of the notice need not be challenged and if the appellant succeeds in establishing the defects in the order u/s. 14, all subsequent measures including notices issued

¶9

¶10

would stand quashed and hence, rejected the application for amendment.

¶11

The impugned order also declined to grant any protection to the appellant since the appellant had volunteered to settle the debt and had submitted three OTS proposals which were rejected by the bank for insufficiency of the amount. In case the appellant succeeds in the S.A. the possession could be restored u/s. 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act therefore, no interim protection was granted.

¶12

The appellant had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat challenging the impugned order by filing a Writ Petition which was disposed of based on the submission made by the Counsel appearing for the appellant that he would again approach the D.R.T for interlocutory orders seeking protection of possession. A stay for three weeks was also granted against the coercive steps to be initiated by the respondent bank.

¶13

However, instead of approaching the D.R.T again, the appellant filed this appeal. The reasons stated for challenging the impugned order do not appear to be very satisfactory because the issuance of the notice was pertaining only to stalling the taking over possession and therefore, it was not essential to bring about an amendment in the S.A. to incorporate the notice of taking possession and therefore to that extend the impugned order appears to be justified.

¶14

It is also pertinent to note that the appellant has himself offered to settle the entire debt and has also paid ₹ 22 lakhs towards the debt. The initial demand u/s. 13(2) demand notice issued on 05.09.2019 was for ₹ 24,11,159/- and thereafter, the amount has

¶15

¶16

been reduced after the payments made. The present outstanding amount according to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent is about ₹ 17,62,000/-. According to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant this amount would be only about ₹ 9,00,000/-. The correctness of the amount need not be gone into at this stage when the appellant is bound to comply with the mandatory provision of Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act and make a pre-deposit.

¶17

The appellant has not come up with any pleading regarding his impecuniosity as already stated. There is also no prima facie case in support of the appellant in challenging the order. The appellant is therefore directed to make a pre-deposit based on the threshold amount of the present outstanding as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent which comes to ₹ 17,62,000/-.

¶18

The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 8.5 lakhs as predeposit for entertaining this appeal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant undertakes to deposit a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs towards the pre-deposit by tomorrow by way of Demand Draft/RTGS. 9. The appellant apprehends taking over a possession on the 26^th instant. Subject to payment of ₹ 5 lakhs by tomorrow with intimation to the Counsel appearing for the respondent, the taking over of possession on the 26^th instant shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing. The balance amount of ₹ 3.5 lakhs shall be paid within two weeks on or before 04.07.2024. Failure to pay the amount undertaken and the further amount shall entail in dismissal of the appeal.

¶19

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Post on 05.07.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the instalment.

¶24

Sd/Chairperson

¶25

rm-4

¶26

Mr Mukush Savjibhai Padsala v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mukush Savjibhai Padsala v. Icici Bank 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

M/s B J Grain and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Kanifnath Construction and Others versus Indian Bank

surya tractors company versus Bank of Baroda

Ms Priyanka Finance versus Vidya Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Snehal Traders versus The Chitnavispura Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Bharatbhai Bhikhubhai Barad versus Tata Capital Financial Services Limited