Partly allowed

Pramod Yashwant Desai v. Federal Bank

DRAT5 Nov 2024IA/774/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined the appeal challenging a DR.T. order refusing protection against SARFAESI measures. Finding the demand notice defective for non-bifurcation of principal and interest, the Court admitted the appeal subject to a pre-deposit of Rs. 1.20 Crores, declining a reduction to 25% but granting installment relief. Physical possession was deferred pending initial payment.

What did the court decide?

Admission of appeal by ordering pre-deposit of Rs. 1.20 Crores in installments; deferral of scheduled possession; dismissal of appeal in default of payment.

Pramod Yashwant Desai versus Federal Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 774/2024 (WoD) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 2300/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Pramod Yashwant Desai & Ors. … Appellant/s

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Authorised Officer, …Respondent/s Federal Bank

¶8

An Advocate for the Appellants is present.

¶9

Mr. V.N. Ajikumar along with Ms. Sejal Patil, i/b M/s. VNA Legal, Advocate for Respondent.

¶10

-: Order dated: 05/11/2024:-

¶11

The appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 20.09.2024 dismissing the Interlocutory Application No. 2348/2024 (I.A.) in Securitisation Application No. 287/2024 (S.A.) by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune (D.R.T.) refusing to grant any protection to the appellants against the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent bank under the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 (“SARFAESI Act” for short) for recovery amount that is allegedly due from the appellants.

¶12

To entertain the appeal the appellants will have to comply with the mandatory provision of making the pre-deposit of u/s 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants contend that they have a very

¶13

¶14

good prima facie case and they are under a financial strain, and therefore, 25% of the pre-deposit amount may be waived exercising jurisdiction of this Tribunal under the 3^rd proviso to section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.

¶15

It is contended that the demand notice issued u/s 13 (1) is defective for the reason that the classification of the account as NonPerforming Assets (NPA) is wrong and an earlier demand notice was issued on 28.12.2023 which gave a different date of NPA and thereafter, the appellants have also paid a sum of ₹20.72 lakhs to regularize the account and then again on 27.12.2023 the account was classified as NPA and the notice is issued afresh on 29.01.2024 demanding a sum of ₹3.71 crores. It is also contended that the notice does not give a bifurcation of the principal amount and interest due. The name and designation of the Authorised Office is not stated and hence, the entire demand notice is defective.

¶16

The appellants would further contend that the affidavit filed before the District Magistrate u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act is defective because the name of the person who was sold the property is not mentioned in the affidavit. It is further contended that the 1^st appellant is MSME and governed by the guideline issued under the MSME Act which has not been followed by classifying the account as NPA.

¶17

In the impugned order the Ld. Presiding Officer has not gone into these intricacies of the challenges raised and has held that the appellants are not entitled to take over the possession of the subject property stalled and hence, dismissed it. On submission made by the

¶18

¶19

counsel appearing for the appellants before the D.R.T. that they would want to prefer an appeal and the Ld. Presiding Officer granted the stay subject to payment of a sum of ₹10 lakhs which has already been paid. The appellants have now stated that the physical possession of the property is scheduled to take place on 07.11.2024 and therefore, an urgency.

¶20

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the classification of the account as NPA is not faulty and he also relied on the circular of the RBI dated 01.10.2021 to indicate that even in default one of the facilities would entail in the classification of all the facilities as NPA. It is pointed out specifically that the cash credit facility granted to the appellants was not renewed and therefore, it has become irregular, and as a reason all the other accounts even though there is payment subsequently made will not help the appellants to get over the classification of the account as NPA. It is also contended that the breakup of each of the facilities is given in the demand notice and therefore, it is not defective.

¶21

The appellants have to some extent established that the demand notice issued is defective for not showing the details of the principal amount and the unapplied interest payable by the appellants. Just mentioning the principal amount and the rate interest will not survive and therefore, I find prima facie there is non-compliance with the mandatory provision of giving the breakup as required u/s 13 (3).

¶22

The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent has also contended that the S.A. is barred by limitation because the symbolic possession was taken on 23.04.2024 and the S.A. is filed only on

¶23

¶24

18.09.2024 and therefore, it is not maintainable and there is no application for condonation of delay filed by the appellants. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants would counter this argument and state that the order u/s 14 was made on 02.08.2024 and the possession notice was received much later and therefore, each action under the SARFAESI Act would be a fresh cause of action to the appellants and they can challenge previous action as well and therefore, it is not barred by the limitation.

¶25

The appellants have produced the income tax returns of the 1^st and 3^rd appellant which indicate that the 1^st appellant had an annual income of more than sum of ₹45 lakhs during the assessment year of 2022-2023 which has compounded to a sum of ₹8 lakhs during the assessment year 2023-2024. It is stated that the 2^nd appellant is a housewife and has no income and the 3^rd appellant does not have sufficient income to deposit a 50% amount demanded.

¶26

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the appellants have an arguable case at least to the extent of challenging the demand notice u/s 13 (2). Their impecuniosity has not been established to a great extent and therefore, they are not entitled to get the amount reduced to 25%. However, they are entitled to some concession and hence, the appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹1.20 Crores as pre-deposit for entertaining this appeal. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submits a sum of ₹10 lakhs shall be paid by tomorrow by way of RTGS. The balance amount shall be paid in three instalments within the gap of two weeks each, as stated hereunder.

¶27

¶28

Numbers of Instalments	Payment on or before
1^stInstalment₹36,00,000/-	19.11.2024
2^ndInstalment₹37,00,000/-	03.12.2024
3^rdInstalment₹37,00,000/-	17.12.2024

¶29

Subject to payment of a sum of ₹10 lakhs by tomorrow 4 PM, the possession scheduled to take place on the 7^th instant shall stand deferred till the next date of hearing.

¶30

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.

¶31

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 and intimated to the counsel for the respondent.

¶32

As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any Nationalized bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

¶33

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.

¶34

Post on 21.11.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the payment of 1^st instalment.

¶35

Sd/Chairperson

¶36

psa-08

¶37

Pramod Yashwant Desai v. Federal Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Yashwant Desai v. Federal Bank

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

PNB Housing Finance Limited versus Rashid Ahmed Sirajulhaq Siddiqui

M S Yadav Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus The Liquidator of M/s Anil Limited

Sachin Jamsingh Rajput and Anr. versus Union Bank of India

Union Bank of India versus Shilpaben Prakashkumar Patel

Bank of Maharashtra versus Tulsi Silver Industries and Ors.