Disposed

Ms Ginning and Ginning v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRAT26 Aug 2024IA/582/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT directed the appellants to deposit ₹70 lakhs as a pre-condition under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to entertain their appeal. The order conditioned the stay of action on the residential premises upon full compliance with the payment schedule, including default consequences.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit ₹70 lakhs via Demand Draft/RTGS to entertain the appeal and stay action on residential premises pending compliance.

Ms Ginning and Ginning versus Bank of Maharashtra — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson I.A. No.582/2024 (WoD)

¶2

¶3

Appeal on Diary No.1787/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s. Ginning and Ginning & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra …Respondent/s

¶7

Mr Radhe Agarwal (through video-conferencing), Advocate for Appellants.

¶8

Ms Hema Desai i/b M/s. CSK Legal Asso., Advocate for Respondent.

¶9

The appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 12.08.2024 dismissing I.A. No.1396/2024 in Securitisation Application(S.A.) No.232/2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T) declining to grant the protection sought by them from the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of debts from them under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short)

¶10

To entertain the appeal, the appellants will first have to comply with the mandatory provisions u/s 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act by making the pre-deposit of the debt due.

¶11

The appellants have raised several contentions in their challenge to the Sarfaesi action. It is pointed out that the factory

¶12

¶13

premises belonging to the appellants have already been surrendered voluntarily and the appellants have no objections in the bank proceeding to sell that property which is worth more than ₹2 crores, according to them. The bank will have to get the factory premises valued before proceeding to sell it. It is their residential property which the appellants seek to protect now. The amount demanded as per the 13(2) notice is ₹2,38,82,964. The impugned order does not go into the merits of the challenges raised to the Sarfaesi action. The appellants are ready and willing to settle the entire debt. They want the factory premises to be sold before proceeding against the residential premises. The appellants have produced their income tax returns to indicate that they are under financial strain.

¶14

Considering all the facts and circumstances, I find that justice will be granted if the appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹70 lakhs as a pre-deposit for getting the appeal entertained. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that they are willing to deposit a sum of ₹10 lakhs by way of demand draft/RTGS within two days. Subject to the payment being made in two days, the Sarfaesi action as regards the residential premises shall stand stalled. The balance amount of ₹60 lakhs shall be paid in two instalments as stated hereunder.

¶15

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment of₹ 30Lakhs	17.09.2024
2^ndInstalment of₹30 Lakhs	08.10.2024

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft/RTGS with the Registrar of this Tribunal. Payment by RTGS shall be communicated to the Registry for verification.

¶19

As and when the said amount is deposited, it 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 respondent is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.

¶21

Post on 18.09.2024 for reporting compliance.

¶22

Sd/Chairperson

¶23

Nidhi-06

¶24

Ms Ginning and Ginning v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Ginning and Ginning v. Bank of Maharashtra

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

Shantiben Navalkishor Kamti and Ors. versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Ashish Ramesh Hirurkar versus The Authorised Officer Shriram City Union Finance Limited

Vnr Entrprises and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Arclil versus O/L of Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. & Ors.

Deustche Bank versus Rajarshi Cars Pvt. Ltd.

Adi Impex Infra Services versus State Bank of India