Disposed

Ms Bajrang Agro Industries through Its Partner Shri Ishwar So Bapusaheb Kharse v. Bank of India

DRAT21 Jul 2025IA/276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an interim application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit required under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for entertaining an appeal. The court directed the deposit of 40% of the assessed amount in two installments to satisfy the statutory requirement. The application for waiver was not allowed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Appellant to deposit 40% of Rs.14,71,000/- in two instalments of Rs.2,94,200/- by 04.08.2025 and 18.08.2025; Appeal shall stand rejected on failure to deposit; Registrar to invest deposit

_" _Dated; 21.07.2025 Learned Counsel for Petidoners/Appellants; submitted -that It is his submission that sale, notice dated 21.10.2020 was on ■30.09.20.1,9,. ..O,ut. of 13 properties mortgaged, 2 properties account, was 'also closed. "The auction purchaser was also T’etitiohers/Appeliants filed S.A. ;No. 113/2020 challenging the issuance of the demand notice, dated 0,5.10.2019, symbolic possession notice dated 01.10.2020 and .sale hoticei dated .DEBT- RECOVERY -APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT-CHENNAI) I.A. No. 276/2025 (WoD) In Regular Appeal Dy No. 673/2025 This Application is filed, seeking waiver of statutory deposit 'required under Section 18(1) of the. SARFAESI Act, 2002, for : entertaining the Appeal. • issued for realising the debt .due qf Rs.642,76,490.36p, due as' 2i..ip,.2G2p., After: cohtesti this'S.A. was; not allowed. Against .thaLorder, this appeal is filed along-with waiver application. compensated. Taking advantage of sale, of the property, now the. auction purchaser is now trying to change the revenue: records' i Sale. Ccrdficatc was issued’.on 18.12,2020. Thereafter, the Petitiqnef/Appellants approached .the Bank for settlementunder ,OTS;. He paid Rs.3.17crores and settled the loan dues and the •have b'ce’n s61d.for.Rs.-14,20.i000/'-.. Sale was'held on 25.11.2020.
Counsel. jlh’ ‘the- said circumstances, Learned - for
Learned Counsel for Respondent N0S;-2 and 3 submits that the auction purchasers, purchased the property for a sum of ■ RS.-14.2d Lakhs. The auction purchasers were hot party' to the Petitioners/Appellants prays for '.waiver of pre-deposit and Stay.

**_" _**Dated; 21.07.2025
Learned Counsel for Petidoners/Appellants; submitted -that
It is his submission that sale, notice dated 21.10.2020 was
on ■30.09.20.1,9,. ..O,ut. of 13 properties mortgaged, 2 properties
account, was 'also closed. "The auction purchaser was also
T’etitiohers/Appeliants filed S.A. ;No. 113/2020 challenging the
issuance of the demand notice, dated 0,5.10.2019, symbolic
possession notice dated 01.10.2020 and .sale hoticei dated
.DEBT- RECOVERY -APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI
(SITTING AT-CHENNAI)
I.A. No. 276/2025 (WoD)
In
Regular Appeal Dy No. 673/2025
This Application is filed, seeking waiver of statutory deposit
'required under Section 18(1) of the. SARFAESI Act, 2002, for
: entertaining the Appeal.
• issued for realising the debt .due qf Rs.642,76,490.36p, due as'
2i..ip,.2G2p., After: cohtesti this'S.A. was; not allowed. Against
.thaLorder, this appeal is filed along-with waiver application.
compensated. Taking advantage of sale, of the property, now the.
auction purchaser is now trying to change the revenue: records'
i Sale. Ccrdficatc was issued’.on 18.12,2020. Thereafter, the
Petitiqnef/Appellants approached .the Bank for settlementunder
,OTS;. He paid Rs.3.17crores and settled the loan dues and the
•have b'ce’n s61d.for.Rs.-14,20.i000/'-.. Sale was'held on 25.11.2020.

Counsel.
jlh’ ‘the- said circumstances, Learned
- for

Learned Counsel for Respondent N0S;-2 and 3 submits that
the auction purchasers, purchased the property for a sum of
■ RS.-14.2d Lakhs. The auction purchasers were hot party' to the
Petitioners/Appellants prays for '.waiver of pre-deposit and Stay.

alleged settlement reached strongly opposes this application. the matter of OTS sums have been paid. In the Bank stated that “depending on the decision of Honhle DRT Nagpur regarding It is seen from the submission of the parties and also the impugned order, after sale of two properties in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Petitioners/Appellants entered into OTS with Bank, and in terms of OTS, the OTS proposal, between the Borrowers/Petitioncrs and the Bank. Auction purchasers were never compensated. He
approved, the Petitioners/Appellants have to pay the
amount in the loan account and borrowers will under OTS. borrower will Lakhs plus Rs.7.53 of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40% meet the of Rs. 14,71,000/- would requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal. compensation, claims/damages if demanded by the successful bidder, DRT order shall be binding on them. If the DRT passes the order in Bank's favour, Bank shall register the sale certificate of bidders and appropriate the bid Now we are concerned only about sale of two properties in relation to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. These properties have been sold for totalling Rs. 14.71 Lakhs (Rs.7.18 Lakhs). Therefore, this Tribunal is pay remaining amount of Rs.302.30 lakhs However, if Honhle DRT passes order against bank, and if bank will have to refund the amount to the bidders, then, compensate the amount, if any,, along with any extra charges/amount as per DRT Order? There are several other conditions as well in the OTS.
Admittedly, 40% of Rs.14,71,000/- to comes Rs.5,88,400/-. Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants deposit shall
Rs.5,88,400/- in two equal instalments, I" instalment of

alleged settlement reached
strongly opposes this application.
the matter of OTS
sums have been paid. In
the Bank stated that “depending on the
decision of Honhle DRT Nagpur regarding
It is seen from the submission of the parties and also the
impugned order, after sale of two properties in favour of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the Petitioners/Appellants entered into
OTS with Bank, and in terms of OTS,
the OTS proposal,
between the Borrowers/Petitioncrs
and the Bank. Auction purchasers were never compensated. He

approved, the Petitioners/Appellants have to pay the

amount in the loan account
and borrowers will
under OTS.
borrower will
Lakhs plus Rs.7.53
of the view that directing the
Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40%
meet the
of Rs. 14,71,000/- would
requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act,
2002, for entertaining the Appeal.
compensation, claims/damages if demanded by the successful
bidder, DRT order shall be binding on them. If the DRT passes
the order in Bank's favour, Bank shall register the sale certificate
of bidders and appropriate the bid
Now we are concerned only about sale of two properties in
relation to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. These properties have been
sold for totalling Rs. 14.71 Lakhs (Rs.7.18
Lakhs). Therefore, this Tribunal is
pay remaining amount of Rs.302.30 lakhs
However, if Honhle DRT passes order against bank,
and if bank will have to refund the amount to the bidders, then,
compensate the amount, if any,, along with any
extra charges/amount as per DRT Order? There are several other
conditions as well in the OTS.

Admittedly,
40%
of
Rs.14,71,000/-
to
comes
Rs.5,88,400/-.
Therefore,
Petitioners/Appellants
deposit
shall

Rs.5,88,400/- in
two equal instalments,
I" instalment of

Ms Bajrang Agro Industries through Its Partner Shri Ishwar So Bapusaheb Kharse v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Bajrang Agro Industries through Its Partner Shri Ishwar So Bapusaheb Kharse v. Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mack Star Marketing Private Ltd. versus Sammaan Capital Ltd.

Aaran Realties Private Limited versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

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

Merchant Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. versus Smfg India Credit Company Ltd.

Shri Shakti Cement Products versus Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited

Nitin Eknath Pawar versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited