Allowed

Ms Janvi Ornament v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

DRAT9 May 2025IA/270/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellate Tribunal guidelines for filing a regular appeal in debt recovery. The court requires appellants to deposit 30% of the claimed demand amount in two equal instalments to proceed. Failure to deposit will result in rejection. Pending payment, filing is allowed but disposal deferred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs. 27,48,998.10 in two equal instalments; appeal admitted conditionally with possession deferred pending payment.

Ms Janvi Ornament versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY.APPELLATE TRIBUNALMUMBAI (sitting, at -Chennai) IA .270/2025 ■in DY.; No.676./-2025 (Regular Appeal) Dated: 09.05.2025

¶2

This Application is,'filed seeking waiver of pr”£deposit required under Section 1-8 (1) of the; SAREAESl Act.'for ehteftaihing this Appeal •Ld. Counsel for Petitioner^/.Appeliailts submitted -that’Petitioners’ filed SA .51872023 before : 'Tribunal below challenging a) classification ofloaii account as a,NPA is yioiativerpf law b) to quasi1 hnd : set: aside the demand notice dated: 31.3.2023 issued by respondent financial institution Under Section L3'(2) Of SARFAESl Act c). to quash subsequent Steps taken - with issuance of. possession notice dated, 17.6.2023, Under Section 13(4); of SARFAESI Act d) to qUash. sale notice dated 1.7.2023 fixing tlie sale on 3.8.2023 and e) to quash order .of Ld. GJM', Rajkot dated '28.7.2023 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESl Act. After contest, .the said'SA was dismissed-on 22.4.2025.

¶3

It is her further submission that after disposal of the SA on 22.4.2025, a fresh Sale Notice dated 26.4.2025 was issued by Respondent fixing the sale >n 14.5.2025. Therefore, this Appeal is filed along vith Waiver Application. Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants urther submitted that the Bank is proposed to :ake possession on 25.05.2025. Learned Counsel for Respondent Institution opposed this Application stating that the reason for waiver on the ground of disablement is not enough or complete waiver. The .SA has been finally disposed of, and subsequent Sale Notice dated 26.04.2025 fixing the sale on 14.05.2025, cannot 3e challenged in this Appeal.

¶4

Considered the rival submission and perused the records. It is seen from the records produced that SA 518/2023 was filed challenging Demand Notice dated 31.3.2023, symbolic Possession Notice dated 17.6.2023 and order of Ld. CJM, passed under Section 14 of the SARRAESI Act, and this SA was

¶5

finally disposed of on 22.04/2025. In th'c said circtiihStances, directing iflie* Petitioners/Appellants to.deposit 30%- of Rs!92i63;.326.99p (rounded nff to Rs:92,63;327/-), as claimed, in the Demand Notice^
the in. two equal instalments, would meet
requirement under Section .18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Admittedly, 30% of Rs.:92,63,327/- comes'.to Rs.27.,48,998; lOp. Therefore,. Petitioners/Appellants Shall deposit Rs.27,48.,998.]Op, in two equal instalments; the - first instalment o'f Rs. 13;5.89,499.05- (rounded off, to Rs. ,13i89i49’9/-) to be deposited on 23.05<2025
to bo If the Petitioners/Appellants- deposit the: l6t and': second instalment of Rs. 13,89,499./- lepOS'ited ohjor before 06.06.2025.
nstalmen't Rs; 13,89,499/-. amount of on
23.05.2025, taking possession shall be deferred till nslalmentj, 23.05.2025, the on Respondent, lext hearing date. 0n failing to deposit the first
accordance with law. hstitution is at- 'liberty to- take possession,. ,in.

¶6

¶7

It is made clear that failure to deposit of either •i if the instalments, the Appeal shall stand •ejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, s to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed. Post the case on 11.06.2025, for compliance of payment. CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHEljNAl (IN-CHARGE. DRAT, MUMBAI) PAM

¶8

f-
<7
i

Ms Janvi Ornament v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Janvi Ornament v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

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

Nishant Vasudev Goyal versus Axis Bank

Canara Bank versus M/ s. D.P. Industries

R P Laser Tech and Ors. versus Indian Bank

Palak Bipin Shah versus the Zoroastrian Cooperative Bank Limited

Ms Unity Hospitals And Ors. versus Axis Bank Limited

Nitin Kalluram Dhandekar versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company through its Authorised Officer