Disposed

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

DRAT23 Jun 2025IA/276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Chennai listed an application by appellants seeking a waiver of the statutory pre-deposit required under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 for an appeal regarding sale notices and alleged post-sale settlement. No decision was rendered in substance.

What did the court decide?

Directed parties to maintain status quo till next hearing date.

Ms Bajrang Agro Industries through Its Partner Shri Ishwar So… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

Dated: 23.06.2025. Praecipe Ulis application is filed seeking waiver of statutoiy deposit l.A. No. 2“6/2025lWoD) In Regular Appeal Dy No. 673/2025 The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a filed by thc Petitioners/Appeilanls for seeking-urgent relief. DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TR1BUNAUMUMBA1 (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
entertaining the Appeal. required under Section .18(1) of the SARFAES1 Act, 2002, for Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that
issuance, of the dated 01.10.2020 and sale notice dated possession notice 21.10.2020. After contest, this S.A. was not allowed. Against Petitioners/Appcllants filed S.A. No. 113/2020 challenging the demand notice dated 05.10.2019, symbolic
that order, this appeal is filed along with, waiver application. It is his submission that sale notice dated 21.10.2020 was issued for realising the debt due of Rs.6,]2./6,49b.’36p, due as on 30.09.2019. Out of 13 properties mortgaged, 2 properties have been sold for RsJ4.20,000/-:. Sale was held .on 25.11.2020.
38.12.2020. Thereafter, the Sale Certificate was' 'issued on
Pctitioner/Appellants approached the Bank for settlement under OTS. He paid Rs.3.17crores and settled the loan dues and the
account was also closed. The auction purchaser was also
compensated. Taking advantage of sale of-the property, now the auction purchaser is now trying to change the revenue records.
In the said circumstances, Liamed Counsel for
Petifioners/Appellants prays for waiver of pre-deposit and stay.

¶2

Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 subnuts that the-auction purchasers purchased the property for a sum of Rs.14.20 Lakhs. The auction purchasers were hot party to the alleged settlement reached between the Borrowers/Petitioners and the Bank. Auction purchasers were never compensated. He strongly opposes this application.

¶3

There is no representation for tire Respondent No. 1 Bank.

¶4

It is seen from the submissions made that the alleged settlement between the borrowers and the Bank had entered into after the sale of the property in favour of the auction purchasers, sale notice has been published in Right of redemption is lost once the newspaper. May be the settlement can be given effect in so far as the properties which are hot sold. When two properties are sold in auction sale initiated by Respondent No. 1 Bank. )t is not known whether the. settlement is inclusive of the properties which are already sold.

¶5

It is necessary io hear the submission of Learned Counsel 1 Bank before taking any decision in -this for Respondent No. application. Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants . arc directed to serve notice on the I*’ Respondent Bank, for heanng.

¶6

List the case on 04.07.2025, for filing proof of service for

¶7

Respondent Bank and for hearing.-

¶8

Parties are directed to maintain status quo till next date of

¶9

healing.

¶10

CMAWjrow'. c/tni.-iu ti:<.CMAfcGS.SMltf. UUKMB

¶11

MKS

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Gagan Enterprises th its prop satvinderkaur h sindhu versus South Indian Bank

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh versus Icici Bank Limited

Shilpi Bhatia versus Axis Bank

Invent Assets Securitization and Reconstruction Private Limited versus Bank of Baroda and 4 Ors.

Sanjay Suryabhan Dhabre versus The Nirmal Urban Cooperative Bank Limited

M/s.Newton Engineering and Chemicals Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda