Disposed

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

DRAT24 Apr 2025IA/244/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT directed the appellant to deposit 40% of the statutory deposit amount in two instalments to entertain the appeal against SARFAESI measures, deferring possession issuance until compliance, with failure leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Directs deposit of Rs. 1,47,30,535 in two instalments before 26.04.2025 and 26.05.2025 to entertain the appeal; defer possession; rejection if deposit fails.

Unique Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

r &

DEBT RECOVERY.APPELLATETR1B1JNALMUMBAI :(S1TT1NQ At -CHENNAI)

¶5

LA. No. 244/2025 (WoD) In Miso. Appeal Dy; No. 613/2025

¶6

Dated: 24.04.2025

¶7

The fmatter is taken tip for hearing by way of :a - .Praecipe filed by the. Petitioners/Appeliants for seeking urgent relief

¶8

This Application .is, .filed seeking walvex of statutory deposit required under Section 18(1) .of’ the SARFAES1. Act, 20.02',; for entertaining the ' Appeal.

¶9

It is the submission of Learned Counsel fdr Petitioners/Appellants that the Petitioners’/Appellants challenged measures taken under -SARFADSl Act-, 200’2;,• including the Sale : Notice dated 31.-12.2024 and Symbolic-Possession , etc., in Securitisation .Application No. 49/2025. In -the said S.A., the Petitioners-/Appellants had nought an interim order restraining .1st Respondent Bank from taking: possession of the properly; That was; rejected through’ the impugned order dated 19.04.2025, therefore, this Appeal along with Waiver.Application.

¶10

I 11

¶11

It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that the .mandatory provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, have not been complied with in the matter of sale and the property was sold for a lesser price.

¶12

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for I*1 Respondent Bank that the amount demanded as per Sale Notice dated 31.12.2024 is Rs.3,68,26,337.17p with interest from 01.09.2024, one of the properties was sold on 02.03.2025. In the earlier possession scheduled on 20.04.2025, the possession could not be taken. Fresh Possession Notice dated 21.04.2025 was issued scheduling possession on 27.04.2025. There is no challenge to this Possession Notice. The amount due as of now is Rs.4.02 Crores.

¶13

The Auction Purchaser Respondent No. 2, who appeared through Video Conferencing, objected to grant complete waiver.

¶14

Consider the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶15

¶16

The Challenge in StA. was the Sale Notice . dht'ed 31.12.2024 demanding a sum of Rs-. Rs.3,68,26,337.17p. One of the properties has already been sold. Now the:.possession is sought to be taken in respect of two properties' of which, one property is sold and one is-yettp be sold.

¶17

In the said cifcumstarices. stated by Learned Counsel for both parties and that the loan is of the year 20-15, and that.no amount .is paid to‘the Bank;after issuance of the Demand Notice, this Tribunal is of the view directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40%; of Rs.3,68,26,33?,.17p (rounded .off to Rs.3,68;26,337/*) -in two instalments, would meet the requirement, under Section 18(1) :of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for1 rentertaihingj the Appeals

¶18

Admittedly, 40% of Rs.3,68,26,337/-, Conies, to Rs.l,47,30,534.8.0p (rounded on to

¶19

Rs. 1,47,-30,535/-. .

¶20

Therefore, Petitidnefs/Ap£>ellahts shall deposit Rs,li47,30,535/in two equal instalments, 1 ^instalment Of Rs.73,65,,'267.50p to be-deposited on or before ■26.04.2025 and second instalment of

¶21

¶22

k I I

¶23

Rs.73,65,267.50p, to be deposited on before

¶24

26.05.2025 .

¶25

On such deposit, possession shall be deferred till next hearing date. Failing to comply with the conditions as stated above, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed with possession in the manner known to law.

¶26

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.

¶27

List the case on 30.5.2025 for reporting compliance. CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI) MKS

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mr Riteshbhai Ashokbhai Bhingaradiya versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Ms S K Homes versus the Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Limited

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Girdharilal Bishambardas Nayyar

Mr Sanjay Chandrakant Jagtap versus Authum Investment and Infrastructure Limited

Laksmikant B Pathak versus Hinduja Housing Finanace Limited