The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea for waiver of the 25% pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, directing payment of 50% of the debt due to entertain the appeal.
Directing the appellant to deposit ₹20,15,550 as 50% pre-deposit in the Tribunal within fifteen days from 25.09.2024.
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.658/2024 (WoD)
In
Appeal on Diary No.1863/2024
Between
Ravindra Dattatryeya Khedekar V/s.
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank & Ors.
… Appellant/s
Mr Nagane (through video-conferencing), Advocate for Appellant. Mr V.N. Ajikumar i/b M/s. VNA Legal, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
-: Order dated: 25/09/2024:-
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the appellant for seeking urgent relief.
The appellant is in appeal impugning the order dated 12.08.2024 in I.A. No.1913/2024 in Securitisation Application on Diary No.1590/2024 (S.A.) on files of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T) declining to grant any protection to the appellant against the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent bank for recovery of debts allegedly due from the appellant under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short).
1
13.08.2024 and the D.R.T. declined to grant any protection. The appellant is aggrieved and hence, in appeal.
2
possession today. Hence, the appellant has approached this Tribunal with this appeal and seeks interim protection against the taking over of possession today. The respondent bank has appeared and has vehemently opposed this application.
3
interlocutory application before the D.R.T.
4
for the respondent bank submits that even if there is an application filed at this stage, it is barred by limitation because, in the reply filed by the bank before the D.R.T., the details of the sale have been made clear. A copy of the sale certificate was also produced indicating the name and details of the auction purchaser and therefore, steps to challenge the sale were taken within forty-five days which has not been made, and hence, the challenge to the sale also failed on the grounds of limitation.
5
Post on 11.10.2024 for reporting compliance of the payment.
Sd/Chairperson
Nidhi-07
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to a waiver of the 25% pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the pre-deposit requirement for entertaining the appeal should be 50% of the debt due inclusive of interest.
Whether defects in CERSAI registration and intimation notices vitiate the SARFAESI measures initiated by the bank.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Dattatryeya Khedekar
The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
