Disposed

Invent Assets Securitization v. Kai Sushilatai Gaikwad Bhauddeshiya Sanstha Solapur

DRAT17 Dec 2024IA/819/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an interlocutory order granting protection against possession under SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal directed the lower court to dispose of the matter on merits expeditiously. The appeal was disposed of without deciding substantive merits.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed without decision on merits; lower court directed to decide stay application on merits within one month; interim protection continued for two months.

Invent Assets Securitization versus Kai Sushilatai… — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 819/2024 (Stay) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal No. 204/2024

¶4

Between

¶5

Invent Assets Securitisation & Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

Kai Sushilatai Gaikwad Bhauuddeshiya Sanstha Solapur & Ors.

¶8

Mr Sidharth Samantarey i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co., Advocate for Appellant.

¶9

Mr Rishabh Shah along with Mr V.B. Shitole i/b Mr Nandkumar M. Bharati, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

¶10

-: Order dated: 17/12/2024:-

¶11

The appellant creditor is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2024 in I.A. No. 1902/2024 in Securitisation Application (S.A.)No. 321/2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT) granting protection to the applicants in the S.A. against the taking over of possession of the secured asset by the appellant under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short) for recovery of debt allegedly due from them. It is seen from the impugned order that DRT has directed the parties to come to a settlement and also directed payment of certain amounts. On condition of payment of those amounts, the protection was

¶12

¶13

granted.

¶14

From the arguments advanced it is not seen that the appellant has serious contentions in the S.A. concerning the limitation and maintainability. Any interlocutory prayer for protection or injunction in an S.A. has to be disposed of on its merits. It would not be appropriate to dispose of such interlocutory applications without going into the merits, at least prima facie. On perusal of the impugned order, I see that the DRT has not delved into the merits of the case at all and the contentions raised by the appellant appear to be challenging the very sustainability of the S.A. on the grounds of limitation and maintainability. Hence, at least a prima facie finding concerning the maintainability of the S.A. on the ground of limitation should have been considered by the DRT while granting protection to the respondent herein.

¶15

However, the protection from Sarfaesi measures is already granted on making a payment of ₹ 1 crore. It is also observed in the order that the applicant in the S.A. had earlier made a payment of ₹ 1.26 crores. Further, ₹ 2.10 crores have also been realized by the sale of some properties. Probably keeping in view all these payments made, the DRT had swayed in favour of the applicant to grant protection. There is a serious dispute regarding the exact amount that is due and payable. There is already an Original Application (O.A.) that is pending before DRT, Pune and the parties shall see to it that representations are made before the DRT, Pune and the O.A. itself disposed of expeditiously.

¶16

In the meanwhile, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the DRT to dispose of I.A. No. 1902/2024 on its merits as expeditiously

¶17

¶18

as possible at any rate within one month, and if possible, the S.A. shall also be considered together for disposal. The replies shall be filed expeditiously at any rate within two weeks. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant undertakes to file the reply within two days and a rejoinder, if any, shall also be filed within a week or two. The interim protection shall continue for two months or till disposal of I.A. 1902/2024, whichever is earlier.

¶19

With these observations, the appeal is disposed of without entering into the merits, and keeping open all rival contentions to be considered by the DRT.

¶20

Sd/Chairperson

¶21

nrp- 30

¶22

Invent Assets Securitization v. Kai Sushilatai Gaikwad Bhauddeshiya Sanstha Solapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Invent Assets Securitization v. Kai Sushilatai Gaikwad Bhauddeshiya Sanstha Solapur

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

Stemkor International Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Ritesh Oil Mill Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda

M/S. Ambica Metal and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Mr Girish Vinayakrao Joshi versus Union Bank of India

Shri Sandeep Harish Kewlani versus Authorised Officer Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.

Invent Assets Securitization versus Kai Sushilatai Gaikwad Bhauddeshiya Sanstha Solapur