The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal stayed the dispossession of property pending payment of reduced pre-deposit by the appellants challenging SARFAESI measures, observing an arguable case regarding notice service.
Stay on taking over possession pending payment of R21,00,000/- pre-deposit in installments.
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. 716/2023 (WoD)
In
Appeal on Diary No. 1883/2023 Between Angle Aruna Rebello & Anr. … Appellant/s V/s.
GIC Housing Finance Ltd. …Respondent/s Mr. Puneet Gogad, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Sanjay Anabhawane, Advocate for Respondent.
-: Order dated: 10/01/2024:-
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 12.10.2023 in I.A. No. 3293/2023 in S.A. No. 419/2023 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Mumbai (D.R.T) declining to grant any protection to the Appellants concerning the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent Financial Institution about the secured assets under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. (“ the SARFAESI Act” for short).
1
been making earnest attempts to make payments towards the amount demanded and a sum of ₹ 13 lakhs and odd has been paid towards the debt by the Appellants after issuance of the demand notice. The Appellants plead that they have a good prima facie case and that they are under financial strain enabling them to get the mandatory predeposit for entertaining the appeal reduced to the minimum of 25 % of the debt due.
2
liberty was granted to the Respondent to proceed with the taking over a possession of the property. The Appellants would contend that they are under financial strain the income tax returns of the Appellant No. 1 are produced but no income tax returns of the 2nd Appellant is produced. Taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration, I find that the Appellants have made an arguable case about service of demand notice u/s. 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act.
3
Post on 16.01.2024 for reporting compliance concerning the
payment.
Chairperson
rm-2
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants have made an arguable case regarding the service of the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal can be reduced to 25% given the appellants' financial strain.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Aruna Rebello & Anr.
GIC Housing Finance Ltd.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
