Partly allowed

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge v. Union Bank of India

DRAT11 Apr 2025IA/190/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal rejected a plea for waiver of the statutory deposit required under the SARFAESI Act. It directed the appellants to deposit Rs.12,72,400 (40% of the property sale price) in two instalments. Possession is deferred pending full payment.

What did the court decide?

Deposit of Rs.12,72,400 in two instalments ordered. Taking possession deferred pending deposit. Appeal rejected in case of non-payment.

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI) LA. No. 190/2025 (WOD) IN DN/ 355/2025(MlSC. APPEAL) Dated: 11.04.2025 1. This Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal. 2. Heard Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants and 1st Respondent Bank. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants filed SA 115/2025 before DRT-3, Mumbai, challenging the measures taken by Respondent Bank, under Section 13 (4)/ 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. He filed IA 622/2025 seeking stay of proceedings for taking possession. That was dismissed. Therefore, This Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application. He further submitted that challenging the Sale Notice dated 03.11.2023, the Petitioners/Appellants filed Dy. No. 656/2024 and

¶2

Tty ^0-3551^0^5 CwQ

¶3

♦ f I I I I i 1 I I I I t I 1 I

¶4

it is still pending. Unless he is protected from taking possession, he will lose his property. Therefore, he prayed for waiver. 4. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank opposes this Application on the ground that the property was sold on 29.11.2023 for Rs.31.81 Lakhs. Possession is yet to be taken.

¶5

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶6

In the light of the submission of the Counsel appearing for parties, since the property is already sold on 29.11.2023 for Rs.31.81 Lakhs, a 3”1 party interest had been created, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40% of Rs.31,81,000/-, would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶7

7. Admittedly, 40% of Rs.31,81,000/-, comes to Rs. 12,72,400/-.

¶8

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs.12,72,400/in ‘ two instalments; the first instalment of Rs.5,00,000/-, to be deposited on or

1 i.

• 5

and second instalinent- of before 21.04.2025
,13.:05.2025. Rs.7., 72/100A, to be deposited on -or before
On making the deposit of Rsi5j00,,000/-r by 9.. Pefitioners/App^llants, on Or before* 21.04/2025, taking possession shall be deferred till, next date of ' hearing, _: _the Bank .is- at liberty to proceed further in the manner known to law. 11. It is made clear that failure to deposit of either 10. Failure to deposit of above inentidhed amount,
the Appeal shall stand of the instalments,
by deposit making .such On rejected.
Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT,- Mumbai, : js to invest the same in a Nationalized Bankj from time to time) till further- orders are passed.
Post the- case on 14.05:20'25, for compliance. 1.21. of.
PAM CHAIRPERSdN^SrflHENSAi (IN-CHARGE,:DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶15

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge v. Union Bank of India

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

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Dinkar Patil versus M/s. Indian Bank

Reena Subhash Passi versus Unity Small Finance Ltd.

Mr Pareshbhai Lavjibhai Patel versus Capri Global Capital Limited

Kashish Trade link Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Home First Finance Company India Limited versus Dipen Shah

Ms Peak Agritech through it partner Deepak Eknath Mole versus Canara Bank