Allowed

Mr Riteshbhai Ashokbhai Bhingaradiya v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

DRAT23 Apr 2025IA/242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal considered an application for waiver of the statutory deposit under the SARFAESI Act due to an imminent auction. The court directed the appellants to deposit 25% of the demanded amount in two instalments to regularize the appeal and defer the sale.

What did the court decide?

Directing deposit of Rs. 40,34,334/- in two instalments within stipulated time to entertain the appeal and defer the sale; non-compliance leads to rejection of appeal.

Mr Riteshbhai Ashokbhai Bhingaradiya versus Tamilnad… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-

¶3

MUMBAI

¶4

(SITTING AT .-CHENNAI)

¶5

LA. No. .242/2025 (WoD) In Misc. Appeal Dy No. 594/2025

¶6

Dated: 23.04.2025.

¶7

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

¶8

Mr. V. Chandrasekaran and Mr. S. Vignesh Advocates, undertake to file Vakalat for

¶9

Respondent Bank.

¶10

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

¶11

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that sale is scheduled tomorrow. i.e. 24.04.2025. Therefore, the Petitioners/Appellants moved Preponement Application before DRT-H, Ahmedabad, for earlier

¶12

1^7

¶13

hearing. Learned Presiding Officer heard immediately and passed order on 04.04.2025 on Preponement Application in S.A. No. 40/2025 and preponed the case from 17.06.2025 to 24.04.2025. When the sale is scheduled on 24.04.2025 unless the sale is stopped the Petitioners/Appellant will be seriously prejudiced. In the said circumstances, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application.

¶14

Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellant submitted that the Petitioner/Appellants are only guarantors and they arc not the beneficiary of the Joan amount.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank opposed the Waiver Application on the ground that the Petitioners/Appellant were extended two loans; one the Overdraft Facility of Rs. 1.15 Crores and another Term Loan Facility of Rs.36 Lakhs. In all, the Petitioners/Appellants paid only Rs. 1 Lakh on 13.06.2024 towards the Overdraft Facility and Rs.4,102.21p towards Term Loan Facility. As per impugned Sale Notice, the amount demanded is Rs.l,61,37,336.79p. S.A. • was filed only challenging the Possession Notice. However, the

¶16

Petitioners/Appellants continued to state that Amendment Application was filed for incorporating the prayer to challenge the impugned Sale Notice as well.

¶17

In the said circumstances stated by Learned Counsel for the parties and that no third party interest has been created so far, and taking into consideration that the Petitioners/Appellants are only guarantors and the Petitioners/Appellants expressed their willingness to settle the loan with the Bank, this Tribunal is of the view directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 25% of the amount mentioned in the Sale Notice, in two instalments, would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶18

Admittedly, 25% of Rs.1,61,37,336.79p (rounded off to Rs.1,61,37,337/-), comes to Rs.40,34,334/..

¶19

Therefore, the Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs.40,34,334/-, in two instalments, the first instalment Rs. 15 Lakhs to- be deposit before11.00 AM tomorrow, i.e. 24.04.2025 and the

¶20

J I

¶21

i I

¶22

of Rs.25',34,334/- deposited on or before 22.05.2025. second instalment to	be
If such deposit is made, the sale shall deferred till next date of hearing. Failing to com	be ply
above, stated the conditions with as Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed with sale, in the manner known to law.	the the
It is made clear that failure to deposit ei of the instalment,-the Appeal shall stand rejec On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appell orders are passed. Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the same Nationalized'Bank, from time to time, till fur	ther ted. ant, in a ther
Post the case on 26.05.2025 for repo compliance. MKS CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHE (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MU	rting NNAI MBAI)

Mr Riteshbhai Ashokbhai Bhingaradiya v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Riteshbhai Ashokbhai Bhingaradiya v. Tamilnad Mercantile 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

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited

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

Ms Gayatri Food Products versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Ms S K Homes versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Unique Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

State Bank of India versus Girdharilal Bishambardas Nayyar