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

DRAT17 Apr 2025IA/234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) addressed an application seeking waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Tribunal determined that the deposit is mandatory and fixed the amount at 40% of the sale notice value, to be paid in two equal instalments before the scheduled sale date, with consequences of deferral or rejection based on compliance.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ruchita Sahay versus Branch Manager Samman Capital Limited… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

a DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE T'RIBU NAL. MUMBAI (slTTiNG AT -CHENNAT) i.A. No. 234 /2o2s (woD) In Re$rlar Appeal Dy No. 44812025 , Dated: 17.O4.2A25

¶2

The matter is takeir up for hearing by way of a Praecipe fiied by the PetitionerfAppella:rt for seeking urgent relief.

¶3

This Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESi Act, 2002, for entertaining. the Appeal,

¶4

Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that Petiiioner/Appe11ant liled SA 42/2A22 chalienging the Deinand Notice dated A7.O9.2021 and measures taken ut:der SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 for taking possession and for bringi:rg the property for sale. This SA was dismissed on O4.A3,2O25 on the grounci that the Pctitioner/Appellant had llo Locu.s standi for maintaining the SA, for reason thal PetitionerlAppellant^, entet-ed into sale agreetnenl without permission of 1"' Respondent ttanlclv^tltt:

¶5

{}'w,',

¶6

Financial Institution.^{The sale agreemcnt executed} in r:espect of the^{property rvhich was mortgagedon} 29-t2.2OL6, as security^{interest for theloan} obtained. This order^{was passedwithoutgiving} ', suflicient opportunity^{to the Petitionei} /Appellant'

¶7

He further^{submittedthat theamount} d,emarrded in $ection^{i3(2) of SARFAESIAct, 2AO2} dated A7.O9:2!A21,^{was Rs.85,39,397.45p- In the.} SaIe: Notice dated^{3L,O3.2A25, fixing the sale on} ,08.05.2025-, a,sutrn of^{Rs.1.6tr Crores demanded as} ar,ngunt due. lf^{the Appealis not entertainedand} Fefi+i'oner/,Appel1artt^is not protected, Pe"titioner/Appellant^{rvill be seriouslyprejuciiced'} Therefore, this^{'Appealis {iled along rvithWaiver} Application'

¶8

Lear,ned Counsel^{for I't} Respondent Institution tobjeeted^{to the wajver appiication on the} ground that the^{Demand f{otice issued on} A7,QT-.2;A21^{\n'as withdrawnan 24'04'2A23 arlda} fresh Dernand.^{Noticerryas issuedon 27 'O4'2O23} and lhere^{was no challengeto this Demand Noticc'}

¶9

Learned Counsel for 1't Re spondent Institution submitted that she is not aware oI the saie notice dated 3i.03.2025.

¶10

In reply to this, Learned Counsel for Petitior:er/Appellant submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant already filed an Application for amendment chal.lenging the fresl-t Demand Notice dated 27.O4.2O23 and measures talcen there on He also brought to tny notice that the ordet'^p:rssecl in the amendment application and allowing of^the amendment application on 03.03.2025.

¶11

In reply tr: this submission, Learned Counsel for l"t Respondent Institution submitted^{that the} prayer in amendtnent was u'ith regard^to substitution of Demand Notice^{ancl also notice of} Writ of Comrnission dated 10.O2.2025^{issuecl l:v ern} Advocate Raziya Gulab N1ansuri^a:rdlhe amendment is not carried out so^far.

¶12

Considered the rirral submission aud^perused the records,

¶13

The reading of the order^{dated03.03.2025} allowing the amendrnent^{applicatioi-r iulA} 46512025 shows that it wa.s^{pleaded iuthe} tiwi,ry'

¶14

amendrnent application that after withdrau,al of the SARFAESI proceedings, during pendency of SA 42i2,e22, Bos-s.ession order dated tT.O8.2O24 was Cleiimed. i F.resh Demanel Notice was not served on the Petitioner/Appellant. Fresh Ilemancl Notice: dated 27.A4.2023 was issuecl behir_rd lire Lrack without folloraring the procedur.e, and therefore, tJ,le amendment was soughl arrd that was allor,r,ed. The player in 1l",amendment application are ,,i) Al.Low the Bresent A1tl2ticatian and pennit tLrc Appltcant to amend flhis r&4 as Schedute h.ereunder written. ii) Grant qn immediate stag on the execution of the possesslon ord.er and. the Writ Commisszoner,s notice lfur .possession scheduled for OS,OS.2O2S, pendin.g adjudication of the amentl.ed.SA l[o. 42 of 2O22 ctncl 't4 pa.ss ,sueh other and. further orclers as this I{onbte, Tribunal m,ag d.eent fit and. proper in the irtterest oj liistice : and. equitg. "

¶15

?he Submissions u.ith regard to the i|rysrrdmsjl+, proper serrvice on fi-esh demand notiee, sale notice, are issues to be considered in the main appeaJ. For enl.ertaining the Appe;,r1, thr: pre deposit is mancjato{F to maintain tl_:js Appeal unde.i: section 1B(1), of the SARFAESi Act, 2002. Therefore, takit:g jnto consideration of the fact that

¶16

as per sale notice dated 31.O3.'2025, r.tre llmorrlrt demanded is Rs.1,61,00,000/-, tl'ris Tribur-ral is of the view that directing 1.he Pctitioner/Appellant to deposit 49% of Rs.1,61,00,000/, in two equal instalments, would meet the requirement under Section 1B(1) of SARFAESI Act, ZAO2, for entertaining the Appeai.

¶17

Admittedly, 4Oo/o of Rs. 1,61.00,000/comes to Rs.64,40,00O /-.

¶18

Therefore, Petitioner/Appellalt sha-Il deposit Rs.64,40,0AA1-.in turo equal instalments; tl-re first instalment of Rs.32,2O,00A1-, to be deposited on or before 07.A5.2A25 and second instalment of Rs.32,20,0O'A I -, to bc dcposited o1-r or belore 15.05.2025.

¶19

If deposit of 1"'insta-hnent is r-naclc, on^(,r befor:c 07.O5.2025, thc sale scl'recluled on O8.O5.2A25 has to be deferred till next hearing date and failing to comply rn ith the corrdition above, the Respondent shall^proceed with sale as sclreclu1ed.

¶20

It is raade clear that failure to deposit of either of the, instalments, the Appeal shal1 stand rejected. On inaking such cleposit b_v trrff

¶21

Peliti,onerlAppellant, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, is to invest thei safiie in a Nallot aTized Bank, frorn tirrr-e to t-ir-ne, till further orders are passed. ' 'Post the case on 26.05.2025, for compliance. 0e")'ry''7 CHAI IRPILITSON:D l{A1',^{(:l{ }i N} NA^I (tN-cllARG[], DRAT, N4UIUBAIi PAM

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Pravinbhai Bhavarlal Sankhala versus Bank of Baroda

Akash Ashokbhai Savaliya and Ors. versus Dcb Bank Limited

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited