Allowed

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh v. Icici Bank Limited

DRAT22 Apr 2025IA/240/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debtor Recovery Appeal Tribunal allowed the admission of an appeal by directing the appellants to deposit 40% of the sale consideration in two equal instalments. Confirmation of sale was deferred pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directing the deposit of Rs.36,22,020/- in two equal instalments to meet the deposit requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and deferring the confirmation of sale.

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

l I I I J

¶2

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TR1BUNALMUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)

¶3

LA. No. 240/2025 (WoD) In Wise. Appeal Dy No. 586/2025

¶4

Dated: 22.04.2025

¶5

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioners/Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶6

This Application is Tiled seeking waiver .of statutory deposit required under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants filed Securitisation Application No. 176/2025 challenging the sale proceedings. They moved an Application for stay inl.A. No. 808/2025. That Application was dismissed. Now, sale is scheduled tomorrow, i.e.23.04:2025, therefore, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application and stay Application:

¶7

I I I

¶8

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that in the earlier Securitisation Application No. 156 /2023, the Petitioners/Appellants had given an undertaking to pay the amount due to the Bank, and therefore, no further proceedings was taken, and hence, Securitisation Application No. 156 /2023 was dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequently, the physical possession was taken by Respondent Bank. There is no chance of • settlement by Petitioners/Appellants. Since there is breach of promise made by the Petitioners/Appellants to settle the dues, the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai, rightly dismissed the Application. When the Petitioners/Appellants have not adhered to the promise already made and breached the conditions, they are not entitled for any indulgence.

¶9

Consider the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶10

In the circumstances stated by Learned Counsel for parties, this Tribunal finds that the Petitioners/Appellants have not given effect to the earlier undertaking given for settlement for settling the loan dues with the Bank. Again, they

¶11

(MH

¶12

i 1

¶13

approached this Tribunal when the auction is scheduled tomorrow. Therefore, this Tribunal finds no merits in the Appeal and in the Application. However, for entertaining the Appeal, the pre-deposit is mandatory. Learned Counsel appearing for both parties are hot in a position to inform this Tribunal as to the amount claimed in Sale Notice.

¶14

In the said circumstances, directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40% of the amount mentioned in the Sale Notice, in two equal instalments, would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, .for entertaining the appeal.

¶15

Adrhittedly, the amount mentioned in Sale Notice dated 02.04.2025, is Rs.90,55,050/-. 40% of Rs.90,55,050/- comes to Rs.36,22,020/-.

¶16

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs.36,22,020/-, in two instalment, the first instalment of Rs.18,11,010/- to be deposited on or before 06*05.2025 and the second instalment of Rs. 18,11,010/-, to be deposited on or before

¶17

20.05.2025.

¶18

If such deposit is made, sale may go on but the confirmation of sale alone shall be deferred till next date of hearing. Failing to comply with the conditions as stated above, the Respondent Bank shall proceed further by completing the :sale, in the manner known law. 11. It is made clear that failure to deposit of either of the instalments, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed. 12. Post the case on 27.05.2025, for reporting compliance. CHAIRPERSON, DRAT. CHENNAI (IN-CHAROE, DRAT, MUMBAI) MKS

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh v. Icici Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh v. Icici Bank Limited

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

Akash Ashokbhai Savaliya and Ors. versus Dcb Bank Limited

Pravinbhai Bhavarlal Sankhala versus Bank of Baroda

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

Ms Harishobha Agro Poultry through Its Propriftor Mrs Anita Waman Mawle versus Bank of Maharashtra

Ms Gayatri Food Products versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Mr Pravin Dhirajlal Gediya versus Icici Bank Limited