Allowed

Shilpi Bhatia v. Axis Bank

DRAT13 May 2025IA/278/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal held that pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandatory for entertaining an appeal. Instead of full waiver, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit specified instalments on an installment basis to meet the requirement, deferring possession steps if the first installment is paid.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs by 20.05.2025 and balance amount by 17.06.2025 as security deposit; possession deferred if first installment paid.

Shilpi Bhatia versus Axis Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

D,EBT.RECOVERY-APPELLATE-T:R1BUNA1^MUMBA1. -(SITTING AT -CHENNAI)

¶2

I.A. No. 278A2025 (W.oD) 1'n Misc. Appeal Dy No. .704/2025

¶3

Dated: :13.O5.2O25‘

¶4

The matter.is taken up'for. hearing', by wa'y of a Praecipe filed by, the Petitioner/Appellant for seeking urgeht relief

¶5

This Application is filed ■seeliing waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18 (,1) of the SARFAESI, ’2002,-for entertaining the Appeal’.

¶6

Leartied 'Couhsei for Petitidrier/Appenaht submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant filed S.A. No.26/2025 challenging the order of Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate -of Esplanade Court ah- securitization case No-. .340/2024 dated 07.12.2'024, Demand Notice dated .04.03.2023, Possession Notice dated .06.12:2023 and fmeasufes taken under SAREAESI; Act, .2002. When this Was pending, the Petitioner/Appellant' moved, ApplicationsI.A; Nd. 4.'ll/.2025 and LA. No. 41'2/2625 for .stay rand amendment-respectively.. The Learned Presiding Officer, finding that outstanding, amount due :as on ■ 03.03.2025 is .Rs. 1,41,4.1,000/-, directed the Petitioner/Appellant to deposit Rs.7 Lakhs on or before ' 05.03.’2025 by .1 PM, and another 'Rs.'7 liakhs within two. ' 'Weeks thereafter and stayed the possession. On .failing to comply thet condition, -the ’Respondent Bank was permitted. : to 'take appropriate, measures ’under SAREAESr Act, 2002, With regard to taking possession.as scheduled. It is further’ submitted by Learned Counsel for Petitioner./Appellant that the Petitioner/Appellant has approached Bank -for settling the'loan Within six..fnohths and the Bank'has .orally-agreed

¶7

¶8

for OTS proposal. It is further submitted that Petitioner/Appellant had complied with instalment by paying Rs. 7 Lakhs and for paying remaining amount, the Petitioner/Appellant moved an Application for extension of time in I.A. No. 1027/2025 and that Application was rejected by Learned Presiding Officer. Thereafter, Petitioner/Appellant approached the Honble High Court of Bombay in WP (L) No. 13930/2025. Considering the fact that possession was scheduled on 02.05.2025, the HonLlc High Court gave protection to the Petitioner/Appellant till today i.e., 13.05.2025 with a direction to approach this Appellate Tribunal for appropriate relief. That is how the Petitioner/Appellant filed this Appeal along with Waiver Application and Stay Application. It is the further submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant that Petitioner/Appellant is a co-borrower along with her husband. She, is a cancer patient and she has got divorce from her husband. There is a prospective buyer for this property identified by the Petitioner/Appellant, who is ready to pay Rs. 1.10 Crore. In the said circumstances, the Petitioner/Appellant seeks waiver.

¶9

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank strongly opposes this Application on the ground that the pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining this Appeal and the amount ■ due as on date is Rs. 1,41,41,000/-. The Bank has rejected the OTS proposal submitted by the Petitioner/Appellant.

¶10

In the said circumstances stated by the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the amount due as per the Demand Notice dated 04.03.2023 was Rs.1,13,46,308/-, and considering the fact that the

¶11

; Petitioner/Appcllant has already paid Rs.7 Lakhs toward -the loan amount, and the pre-deposit; is mandatory for ■ entertaining, the Appeal,, this Tribunal is of, ;the view -that
directing the Petitioner/Appellant to deposit. :25°/p of . RSd,13,45/308/--, would meet the requirement tinder Section. 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for-.entertaining'the Appeal. Admittedly, 25% of Rs. 1,13,46^368/- tomes ‘to
Out Rs.28,3.6,57.7/-, of this Rs;2’8A6,577/-, :the
Petitipner/AppelltoH, is directed to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs; on
Or before 20.05,2025 and the balance amount
i List the case oh 20«0.6>2025 fof reportihg compliance. PAM' i It is made clear -that, failure to- deposit of dither .of the .ihStalmehts, the, Appeal shall -stand, rejected. On ;makihg. such deposit by Petitioner/Appellant,, Registrar, DRAT^ Mumbai is to invest the same in a Nationalized. Bank, from time to time, till further orders .are passed. If the Petitioner/Appellant deposits Rs. 1.0. Lakhs ..on or before :20;05.2d25, tfiMng.pf .possession shall be deferred till, the next date of hearing. On .failing to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs on or before. 20.05.2025, it is Open to Respondent Bank to proceed further 'in ,accordance with law. GHAlRi»EftSO^S5nl:HENNAi (IN-CHAR0E, i)RAT-/MiJMBAl) ^3.18,36,577/- shall be deposited oh or before;,17.06'2025.

¶12

Shilpi Bhatia v. Axis Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shilpi Bhatia v. Axis Bank

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

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Janvi Ornament versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

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

Mr Francis Harold Rosario versus Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited

Shivkumar Shankarrao Deshpande versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)