Disposed

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

DRAT11 Apr 2025IA/227/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Debt Recovery Appeal No. 562/2025, the Tribunal ordered the appellants to deposit 40% of the due amount in two instalments to waive the statutory deposit requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, deferring the bank's scheduled possession.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit Rs. 14,94,264/- by 11.00 a.m. on 12.04.2025 and Rs. 14,94,264/- on or before 24.04.2025. Possession deferred until next hearing.

Kashish Trade link Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

i I I 1 ! 1

¶3

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI) 1A 227/2025 (WoD) in Appeal (D) No. 562/2025 ' Dated: 11.04.202 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 Respondent Bank. 3. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that SA 68/2025 was filed challenging the measures taken under Sections 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. This was finally disposed of on 01.04.2025, but the order was not immediately uploaded. The Respondent Bank Scheduled the date of taking possession tomorrow, i.e. 12.04.2025. Unless the possession is protected, the Petitioners/Appellants will be seriously prejudiced. Therefore, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application. Learned Counsel

¶4

Dy-bls

¶5

for Petitioners/Appellants further submitted that
the amount demanded as per Section 13(2) of
SARFAESI Act, 2002, dated 16.10.2024 is
Rs.99,49,670/-. Petitioners/Appellants have paid, in all, a sum Rs.36.37 Lakhs, after the receipt of
Demand Notice. The very classification of account
as NPA is challenged. No finding was given with
regard to this challenge and Written Submission of
properly. 4. In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondent the Petitioners/Appellants was not considered
Bank submitted that the sale had not taken place
in this case. As on 31.03.2025, after giving credit
to the amount paid by the Petitioners/Appellants, still, there is due of Rs.74,71,818/-
5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
In the light of the submissions made by 6.
Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and
that the possession is scheduled tomorrow, i.e.
12.04.2025, this Tribunal is of the view that
directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40%
of Rs.74,71,818/-, in, two equal instalments, would

¶6

■Ho

¶7

I J 1 1

¶8

meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of SARFAES1 Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.
Admittedly, 40% of Rs.74,71,8i8/-comes to 7.
Rs.29j88,727.20 (rounded off to Rs.29,88,727/-). Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit 8. Rs.29,88,727/- in two equal instalments; the first
instalment of Rs. 14,94,363.50 (rounded off to
Rs. 14,94,,264/to be deposited before 11.00 a.m. tomorrow, i.e. 12.04.2025 and second instalment of
Rs. 14,94,264/- to' be deposited on or before
24.04.2025. Rs.14,94,264/-, by of payment 10. On
11.00 before Petitioners/Appellants a.in.
tomorrow, i.e. 12.04.2025, taking possession shall
be deferred till next hearing date.
Failing to deposit of Rs. 14,94,264/-, by 11.
Petitioners/Appellants before 11.00 a.m. tomorrow,
i.e. 12.04.2025, the Bank is at liberty to proceed
further for taking possession.
12. It is made clear that failure to deposit of either
of the instalments, the Appeal shall stand
making by deposit such rejected. On
Petitionefs/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai,

I I I i I I

'I t) I

	5)V ■bl's-
is to	invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from
time	to time, till further orders are passed.
13. of.	Post the case on 25.04.2025, for compliance
	CHAIRPERSON, D ENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT. MUMBAI)
PAM

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashish Trade link Pvt. Ltd. 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

Coram

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

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge 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