Disposed

Sachin Dinkar Patil v. M/s. Indian Bank

DRAT9 Apr 2025IA/212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous appeal challenging possession measures, the Tribunal held that despite the auction sale and creation of third-party interest, a pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory. Directing appellants to deposit 40% of the auction price in two installments.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellants to deposit Rs. 20,67,200 in two equal installments to maintain the appeal; failure results in rejection.

Sachin Dinkar Patil versus M/s. Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

X I

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TR1BUNALMUMBAI .(SITTING AT -CHENNAI) I:A.:No. 212/2025 (WoD) In ‘Misc. Appeal Dy No. 482/2025. E'ated: :09-.04.2025 L This Application is filed, seeking waiver of statutoiy deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESi Act) 2002, for entertaining the appeal. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants and’Respondent Bank. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants filed SA 454;/2024 challenging the possession measures taken by Respondent Bank, under Section 1.4 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. When Respondent Bank sought- to take possession, ron •25.02.2025, .the Petitioners/Appellants filed, an Application to amend the prayer to challenge the possession scheduled on 25.02-2025.. This amendment Application was filed on 10.02.2025;

¶5

3)y-)4o 4£^c!x>2.5 Cwn)

¶6

¶7

Subsequently, the amendment Application scheduled for hearing on 17.02.2025 and then listed for hearing on 24.02.2025.. On 24.02.2025, the amendment Application was heard in part and listed for further hearing on 25.02.2025. When Counsel for Pctitioners/Appellants pressed for stay of taking possession, Learned Presiding Officer declined to grant stay on the ground that the possession fixed on 25.02.2025 is based on a fresh cause of action and pursuant to thereon, the SA needs to be amended with subsequent events, and therefore, the relief was not granted. The Petitioners/Appellants were granted an opportunity to amend the Application for fresh cause of action. This portion of the order is against the record. Reason is that the amendment Application was filed on 10.02.2025. It was heard in part but no order was passed. Thus, challenging the order dated 25.02.2025, this Appeal is filed. As per the order of Learned CJM, Thane, the amount was shown as Rs.22,27,681/-. In the said circumstances, he seeks for waiver. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank strongly opposes this Application on the ground that the sale had already taken place in this case,

¶8

3y No«

¶9

i i i

¶10

possession taken and possession was given to the Auction Purchaser. The amount mentioned in the order of Learned CJM is the amount mentioned in the Demand Notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The property was sold for Rs.51.68 Lakhs. He further submitted that when the matter was argued on 25.02.2025, no proof such as Diary number or IA number was given to show that the amendment Application was filed on 10.02.2025, and only in the said circumstance, Learned Presiding Officer chose to pass the order.

¶11

Considered the rival submissions and

¶12

perused the records.

¶13

In the circumstances stated by Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and that now the property had already been sold and 3rd party interest has' been created, still, the pre deposit is mandatory to maintain this Appeal under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40% of Rs.51,68,000/-, would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶14

W Em n]
Rs. 20,67,200/-. 1L. Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs. 20,67,200/- in two equal instalments; the first instalment of Rs. 10,33,600/-, to be deposited on or Kp. Admittedly, 40% of Rs.51,68,000/-, comes to
before 23.04.2025 and second instalment of
C 7.05.2025. Rs.10,33,600/, to be deposited on or before 2. It is made clear that failure to deposit of either
instalments, (f the the Appeal shall stand
such deposit by making On i ejected. s to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from ime to time, till further orders are passed. Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai,
Post the case on 09.05.2025, for compliance 13. of. PAM CHAIRPERSON, DRAT^CH^NNAl (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAIJ

Sachin Dinkar Patil v. M/s. Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Dinkar Patil v. M/s. Indian 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

Mr Pareshbhai Lavjibhai Patel versus Capri Global Capital Limited

Nishant Vasudev Goyal versus Axis Bank

Karne Hospital Private Ltd. versus Invent Asset Securitisation and Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Reena Subhash Passi versus Unity Small Finance Ltd.

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

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge versus Union Bank of India