Disposed

Pravinbhai Bhavarlal Sankhala v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT17 Apr 2025IA/232/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed for waiver of statutory deposit under SARFAESI Act for pending appeal. Tribunal ordered deposit of 30% in two equal installments to entertain the appeal and defer possession taking pending deposit compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners/Appellants directed to deposit Rs.8,00,784/- in two equal installments before 15.05.2025 to file deposit; otherwise appeal rejected.

Pravinbhai Bhavarlal Sankhala versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAI-, MUIviBAI (srmING AT -Cr-rBNNAr)

¶3

I.A. No. 2;3212A25@oD) In Mise. Appeal Dy No. 55312025

¶4

Dated: 77.A4.2A25

¶5

The rrratter is taken up for hea:'ing bv way of a. Praecipe filecl by the Petitioners/Appellants for seeking urgerrt relief.

¶6

This Appiication is filed seeking r.r,aiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) ol the SARFAESI Act, 2OA2, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶7

Leari:ed Counsei for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioner:s/Appellants filed SA 296/2024 challenging the rllt:asur-(rs titkctt ltrtt-ler SARFABSI Act, 2AO2, for- taking^possessiotr of the secured asset. The Petitioners/Appellants filed Appiication before Tribunal with prayer to direct the Bank to accept the settlement proposal and seeking stay of taking possession by Respondent Bank, The Applicatlon rvas dismissed. Therelore, this Appeal is filed along with waiver appiication.

¶8

Wy'Yn

¶9

Lera.rned Counsel for Responclent Bank submitted ihat as per possession notice, dated 15,.71,.2029,, the amount demirnded is Rs,38,71,868.66p. However, the Petitioners/Appeilants had made certain payments. As on 17.03.2025, the amount ciue frorn the Petitioners/Appellants is Rs.26 .69,2BO I -.

¶10

In the said circumstances stated by the Counsel appearing for the parties, this ?ribunal directs,the P,eti:tio-nqrs/Appellants, to make pre deposit of gOa/o of Rs,26,69,EgA/_ in two equal instalmppts, w9q1d 1rreet the requirement under 'Seetion XS[I.) of SARFAEST Act, 2OA2, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶11

Admittedly, 3Oo/o of Rs.26,69,280/-comes to Rs.8,00,784/-.

¶12

1 1, Therefure; F-etitioners/Appeiliantq shall clep.osit Rs.8,0O,784/- in two eqrral instalments; the first instlalrBent of Rs.4,0e,Sg2/., to be deposited on or before 01.05,2025 and seconcl instalment of fts,4,O0,392/-, to be depositecl on or belore 15.O5.2025.

¶13

l1u"to

¶14

If such deposit is made, taking possession shall be deferred till next hearing clate and failing to comply with the conditions as stipulared abor,e. the Respondent shall proceed fu::ther for taking posse.ss1o11.

¶15

It is made clear that faiiure to deposit of either of the instalments, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumi:ai, is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, fi'om time to time, till further orders are passed.

¶16

Post the case or1 26.O5.2A25, for complia-nce. .HATRPER' o rf, ffi. .I{EN,NA, (iN-CHARGE, DRA']], MUMBAI] PAM

Pravinbhai Bhavarlal Sankhala v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravinbhai Bhavarlal Sankhala v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vilas Vasant Gandhe versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Janak Jairam Kataria versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

M/s. Shri Shakti Cement Products versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Ruchita Sahay versus Branch Manager Samman Capital Limited (formally knowns as India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.)

Akash Ashokbhai Savaliya and Ors. versus Dcb Bank Limited

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited