The DRAT directed appellants to deposit 80 lakhs as pre-deposit to quash SARFAESI measures. The court deferred possession measures until compliance. Compliance was made via demand draft and instalments.
POSSESSION DEFERRED UNTIL DEPOSIT COMPLIANCE; MOL 80 LAKHS
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. 52/2024(WoD)
In Appeal on Diary No. 51/2024
Between
Comptel Solutions Pvt. Limited through Authorised Signatory Rajesh Dixit & Ors. V/s.
HDFC Bank through the Authorised Officer & Anr.
… Appellant/s
…Respondent/s
Mr M.A. Adenwala, i/b Ms Sippy Nirmalkumar Patawari, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr Chetan C Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent Bank appeared through video conferencing.
-: Order dated: 22/02/2024: -
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 28.12.2023 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 2732 of 2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 397 of 2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (D.R.T.) whereby the Ld. Presiding Officer declined to grant any protection to Appellants from being dispossessed of the secured asset on 28.12.2023 and also did not grant any relief concerning the dispossession of the property till the disposal of the S.A. It is pertinent to note that on 06.11.2023 the Appellants had consented to regularize the account by making a payment of ₹68.77 lakhs which was then the overdue amount by making an outright payment of ₹35 lakhs on that date and agreeing to pay the balance amount of ₹33.77 lakhs on or before 07.12.2023. It was also
1
agreed that thereafter, the Appellants would be paying the EMIs on time without any default. Due to compelling circumstances, the Appellants were not able to pay the second instalment of ₹33.77 lakhs on time and therefore, filed I.A. No. 2732 of 2023 for an extension of time and to get the taking over possession of the property deferred, which was declined by the Ld. Presiding Officer. The Appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal. The Appellants would contend that it was because of a certain compelling reason that they could not arrange the funds on time but on the date of filing of an application for extension, they were ready to pay the balance amount which was due but still, the D.R.T. was not inclined to grant an extension of time and the Respondent had refused to accept that amount. The extension application was still pending but the application for stalling the taking over the possession of the property was declined.
Appellants have also offered to regularize the account by paying the amount which is demanded and therefore, literally, the challenge to the Sarfaesi measures have been given up by the Appellant and therefore, there is no any prima facie case and the Appellants have not produced any evidence to indicate that they are under financial strain. Hence, the Appellants may not be entitled to any concession by invoking the mandatory provisions under the third proviso to Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to get the pre-deposit amount reduced. The outstanding amount as of date would be ₹1,63,42,875.74. The Appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit a sum of ₹80 lakhs as pre-deposit. Towards the said amount, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits a demand draft of ₹30 lakhs. The balance of ₹50 lakhs shall be paid in two equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each as mentioned hereunder.
| Numbers of Instalments | Payment on or before |
|---|---|
| 1stInstalment of₹25 lakhs | 07.03.2024 |
| 2ndInstalment of₹25 lakhs | 21.03.2024 |
3
with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and after that to be renewed periodically.
Post on 08.03.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the first instalment.
Chairperson
mks-04
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellants are entitled to a reduction in the pre-deposit requirement under the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act due to financial strain.
Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to default in payment of instalments.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Comptel Solutions Pvt. Limited
HDFC Bank
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
