The Appellate Tribunal held that appellants must pay a 50% predeposit of the outstanding dues to comply with Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Rejecting the claim of impecuniosity, it directed the payment of Rs. 24 crores in three instalments to entertain the appeal.
Directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 24 crores in three instalments to entertain the appeal.
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. 835/2024 (WoD) In
Misc. Appeal on Diary No. 2451/2024
Between
Shrinath Cotfab & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
The Authorised Officer, …Respondent/s
Canara Bank & Ors.
Mr. Kalpak Mainkar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Gajendra A. Rajput, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr. Jay Salunke & Mr. Nitin Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5
The appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 18.10.2024 dismissing the Interlocutory Application No. 2121/2024 (I.A.) in Securitisation Application at Diary No. 1853/2024 (S.A.) by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Pune (DRT) declining to grant any protection to the appellants concerning the Sarfaesi measures initiated by the respondent (Canara Bank) under the provision of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 ( “SARFAESI Act” for short).
1
possession u/s 13 (4) and that the property was valued and sold at a very low price without any proper valuation report. The Ld. Presiding Officer has in the impugned order observed that the respondent bank has complied with all requisites of u/s 13 (4) and there is no evidence to indicate that the property was prima facie sold at the lower price without proper valuation. Hence, the protection sought by the appellants was declined. The appellants are aggrieved and hence, in appeal.
2
the income of the partners is also relevant and therefore, it cannot be accepted that the appellants have succeeded in proving their impecuniosity. The appellants are, therefore, liable to pay 50% of the threshold amount as pre-deposit for getting this appeal entertained. The appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹24 crores as a predeposit for entertaining this appeal. The said amount shall be deposited in three instalments within the gap of three weeks each as stated hereunder.
| Numbers of Instalments | Payment on or before |
|---|---|
| 1stInstalment₹8 Crore | 23.12.2024 |
| 2ndInstalment₹8 Crore | 13.01.2025 |
| 3rdInstalment₹8 Crore | 03.02.2025 |
3
with any Nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.
In case of compliance, the appeal be listed on 24.12.2024
Sd/Chairperson
psa-06
4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellants comply with mandatory predeposit requirement under Sec.18(1) of SARFAESI Act.
Whether the appellants establish impecuniosity to avail waiver under 3rd proviso to Sec.18(1).
Whether the appeal should be entertained upon payment of 50% predeposit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Prudent ARC Ltd. & Ors.Applied¶14
M/s. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Prudent ARC Ltd. & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Shrinath Cotfab & Ors.
The Authorised Officer
Canara Bank & Ors.
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
