Disposed

Shayaan Industries through Its Prop Faisal Abrar Mohammad Nisar v. Bank of Maharashtra

DRAT3 Dec 2024IA/599/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants sought relief against displacement of their property under SARFAESI Act. DRAT clarified proper service of notice and imposed pre-deposit of ₹75 lakhs in instalments to proceed with appeal, stalling auction pending deposit.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellants to deposit ₹75 lakhs in three instalments to entertain appeal and stalled possession measures.

Shayaan Industries through Its Prop Faisal Abrar Mohammad… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr. Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

¶2

I.A. No. 599/2024 (WoD) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 1847/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

M/s. Shayaan Industries Through its Proprietor … Appellant/s Faisal Abrar Mohamad Nisar & Ors.

V/s.

Bank of Maharashtra

…Respondent/s

Mr Radhe Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.

¶10

Ms Hema Desai, Advocate for Respondent.

¶11

-: Order dated: 03/12/2024:-

¶12

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

¶13

The appellants are in appeal impugning the dismissal of I.A. No. 1414/2024 in the Securitisation Application(S.A.) No. 234/2024 by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur and declined to grant any protection to the appellants against the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of the debt allegedly due from the appellants under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short).

¶14

The appellants have challenged the Sarfaesi measures mainly because the demand notice u/s 13(2) dated 11.12.2023 was not served upon them and they needed to be made aware of the subsequent proceedings.

¶15

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent bank has opposed this application for waiver of deposit wherein the appellants have sought to invoke the 3^rd proviso to Section 18(1) by waiving 25%

¶16

¶17

of the debt due.

¶18

From the records, it is seen that out of the three appellants, appellants 2 & 3 have been served, but notice issued to the 1^st appellant was returned. But in the case of the respondent, all the appellants were served properly, and there is no case for the appellants that the address at which the notice was issued is not correct. Hence, the presumption u/s 24 of the General Clauses Act would also be attracted that the notice has been properly served.

¶19

The appellants contend that they are under financial strain but no Income Tax Returns have been produced to indicate their impecuniosity. The 1^st appellant is a sole proprietor and the rest of the appellants are the guarantors/mortgagors. The amount demanded as per the demand notice u/s 13(2) is ₹ 1,80,27,394/-. Subsequently, the property was also put up for auction and it appears that the auction sale which, though completed is yet to be confirmed on depositing the balance consideration amount. The respondent bank has produced no documents regarding the amount that is due on the date of filing the appeal or the amount mentioned in the auction notice and therefore, the amount mentioned in the demand notice is taken as the threshold amount for making the pre-deposit.

¶20

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the appellants have only an arguable case which needs to stand scrutiny in trial before the Tribunal below. The appellants are, therefore, directed to deposit the sum of ₹ 75 lakhs as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. The appellants shall pay the ₹ 75 lakhs in three equal instalments of ₹ 25 lakhs each within a gap of two weeks each as stated hereinunder:

¶21

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment of₹25,00,000	17.12.2024
2^ndInstalment of₹25,00,000	31.12.2024
3^rdInstalment of₹25,00,000	14.01.2025

¶22

Subject to the payment of the 1^st instalment on time, the possession scheduled to take place on 18.12.2024 and further Sarfaesi

¶23

¶24

measures shall stand stalled till the next date of hearing.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

Post on 18.12.2024 for reporting compliance with the payment of 1^st instalment.

Sd/-

Chairperson

nrp-06

Shayaan Industries through Its Prop Faisal Abrar Mohammad Nisar v. Bank of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shayaan Industries through Its Prop Faisal Abrar Mohammad Nisar 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

Sachin Jamsingh Rajput and Anr. versus Union Bank of India

Rbl Bank Limited versus Heliac Energy Put Ltd.

Ms Shrinath Cotfab versus Canara Bank

Murphy Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

Kachru Hariba Jadhav versus Bank of Maharashtra

Bholenath Industries and Ors. versus Punjab National Bank