Shri Rajendra Kumar So Late Surendra Dua v. Ravi Commercial Urban co-operative Bank Limited

DRAT18 Jul 2025IA/255/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, heard an interim application seeking waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act for entertaining an appeal. The Tribunal declined the waiver request, ordering the appellants to deposit 25% of the claimed dues in two instalments before the appeal could be admitted.

What did the court decide?

Directed deposit of Rs. 3,10,123.50 on or before 24.07.2025 and the balance on 22.08.2025. Appeal deferred till compliance.

Shri Rajendra Kumar So Late Surendra Dua versus Ravi… — Consumer Protection | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT-CHENNAI)

¶2

I.A. No. 255/2023 (WoD) Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 648/2023 In

¶3

Dated: 18.07.2025

¶4

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

¶5

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

¶6

Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellant availed loan of Rs.40 Lakhs towards housing loan facility. When they were regularly paying the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs), due to close of thier business, there was failure in paying EMIs regularly. However, there is no date of classification of loan account as NPA was given in the Demand Notice. No break up details of amount due such as principal and interest is given. When Respondent Bank tried to take possession by obtaining order from Learned Civil Judge, Senior Division & ACJM, Nagpur, on 18.07.2022, on proceeding under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, they filed S.A. No. 301/2022 challenging the orders passed under Section 14 of the stay of proceedings. Since I.A. was dismissed, this Appeal is filed SARFAESI Act, 2002. They also filed I.A. No. 817/2023 seeking along with Waiver Application.

¶7

Notice as due as on 01.07.2017. After the receipt of Demand 31.05.2017. The same amount is reflected in the Possession It is further submitted that in Demand Notice dated 14.06.2017, the amount due was shown as Rs.35,59,266/- as on

¶8

Lakhs to the Bank. Not only that, a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs was also paid into the Bank as per the direction of DRT. Thus, the Petitioners/Appellants had paid totally a sum of Rs.42.40 Lakhs. As per letter dated 05.01.2023 given by the Bank towards settlement of dues, it is clearly stated that outstanding balance as on 05.01.2023 was Rs.24.64 Lakhs. Even in the Advance Notice for Peaceful Possession dated 18.01.2023, it is seen that the balance amount shown as due was Rs.24,80,989/-. In view of substantial payment made by Petitioners/Appellants towards loan due, the Petitioners/Appellants seek waiver of pre-deposit. Notice, the Petitioners/Appellants had paid a sum'of Rs.30.40

¶9

Non-Applicant, Shree Surendrakumar Khemchand Dua, who is the co-borrower cum mortgagor and 4th Respondent NonApplicant, Smt. Pushpa Surendrakumar Dua, died on 23.09.2019 against the dead persons. obtained against dead persons, more specifically, 2nd Respondent alone mortgagor, executed mortgage on 13.01.2015, but it was 2002, was obtained by placing wrong and inaccurate facts and LRs of deceased persons. Mr. Rajendrakumar Surendrakumar Learned Counsel for was executed by Rajendrakumar Surendrakumar Dua, Criminal Application No. 1054/2022 under Section 14 of the orders under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, was Dua is not a mortgagor, but his father Surendrakumar Dua was SARFAESI Act, 2002, was filed without properly impleading the wrongly claimed under Section 14 Application that the mortgage and 12.12.2020 respectively. Only after their death, Misc. He further submitted that the mortgage is defective and and Pushpa Surendrakumar Dua, on 15.012015. It is factually incorrect. The order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, Petitioners/Appellants further submitted that the Respondent Surendrakumar Khemchand Dua, Sonika Rajendrakumar Dua Bank scheduled to take possession on 25.07.2025.

¶10

agitated in the main Appeal. as on 30.11.2024, the amount outstanding is Rs.35,11,085.92p. All the issues raised by Petitioners/Appellants can only be Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank submitted that

¶11

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶12

Rs.24.64 Lakhs and in the Advance Notice for Peaceful issue, on merits, can be considered only in the main Appeal. For 05.01.2023, the amount due claimed as on 05.01.2023 is Possession dated 18.01.2023, the amount due was shown as Lakhs and odd. That apart, it is brought to notice that Section 14 Application was filed against the dead persons. However, this entertaining this Appeal, pre-deposit is mandatory. In view of Rs.24,80,989/. It is not known as to how within the period of 22 to 23 months, the amount of interest alone is escalated to Rs.11 claimed in the counter that a sum of Rs.35,11,085.92p was due as on 30.11.2024, but in the Settlement of Term Loan dated substantial amount already paid, this Tribunal taking the amount claimed in the Possession Notice dated 18.01.2023 at towards loan after issuance of 13(2) Demand Notice. When it is Rs.24,80,989/, directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit payments of Rs.42.40 Lakhs made by Petitioners/Appellants 25% of this amount would meet the requirement under Section This Tribunal finds that there is dispute with regard to 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶13

Admittedly, 25% of Rs. Rs.24,80,989/- comes to Rs.6,20,247.25p (Rounded off to Rs.6,20,247/-).

¶14

Rs.3,10,123.50p shall be deposited on or before 24.07.2025 and Rs.6,20,247/- in two equal instalments, 1st instalment of Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit

¶15

22.08.2025. 2nd instalment of Rs.3,10,123.50p shall be deposited on or before

¶16

If Petitioners/Appellants deposit the 1st instalment of Rs.3,10,123.50p on or before 24.07.2025, taking of possession shall be deferred till next hearing date.

¶17

If the Petitioners/Appellants fail to deposit the 1st instalment of Rs.3,10,123.50p, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶18

It is made clear that on 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.

¶19

List the case on 26.08.2025 for reporting compliance.

¶20

(IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI) CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI

¶21

PAM

Shri Rajendra Kumar So Late Surendra Dua v. Ravi Commercial Urban co-operative Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajendra Kumar So Late Surendra Dua v. Ravi Commercial Urban co-operative 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghunath Maruti Kadam versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

mukund j rana and Ors. versus the Authorized Officer LIC Houising Finance Limited

Shriram Enterprises and Ors. versus Union Bank of India

The Authorised Officer Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Anr. versus Mr Vikram Vijaykumar Choubey and 2 Ors.

Panjooram Bhagoomal Malkani versus Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited

Mack Star Marketing Private Ltd. versus Sammaan Capital Ltd.