Partly allowed

Amol Kashinath Gawade v. Union Bank of India

DRAT14 May 2025IA/279/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Mumbai dismissed the appeal against a waiver application due to delay in filing the original petition. The Court directed the appellant to deposit 40% of the outstanding dues as pre-deposit within one week, failing which the appeal would be rejected.

What did the court decide?

Directed to deposit 40% of Rs.1,89,59,000 as pre-deposit within one week; restrained respondent from creating third-party interest until deposit.

Amol Kashinath Gawade versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - MUMBAI

¶2

1A NO.279Z2025 (WOP) lh Regular Appeal Dv.No.581/2025 Dated : 14.5.2025

¶3

Id. Counsel for both sides are present in VC.

¶4

This application is ‘filed seeking waiver of prerdeposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining the appeal.

¶5

Ld. Couhsel for petit'ioner/appellant submitted that petitioner filed SA(D) No.75.4/2021 before Tribunal below challenging the ■ measures taken under:SARFAESI Act,.pstart1h&from demand notice; possession ’notice, taking, physical possession on 18.10;2024, sale; notice dated;16.7.2024, order, order of Id. DM, Purie’passed under Sectipn 14 of SARFAESI. Act th Application No.1662/2022 dated 20.5.2022, sale held, on 14.8:2024 and. sale certificate, dated 2.9.2024 registered on 30.10.2024 bearing registration No.21974 befofe the Office' of Sub-Registrar, Haveli VI, Pune. Since this :SA was not filed, in, time, petitioner also filed .an application for cpnddnatioh Of delay dft97'days in filing application under. Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Ld. Presiding; Officer, not accepting the, reasons given by the petitioner, for delay, dismissed the application; Therefore,.tliis appeal along with waiver application.

¶6

Ld. Counsel further submitted that, auction purchaser tries to create 3d party interest and alsb, create changes, iri the revenue records and .prayed for’ interimi protection.

¶7

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank opposed this waiver application .on the ground that reasons.;made.out in the application are hot.

¶8

6^) ...Contd./-

¶9

good enough to waive the pre-deposit. It is his further submission that property was sold for Rs.75,71,000/- and the outstanding due as on date is Rs.l>89,59,000/- and that pre-deposit has to be ordered on this amount.

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶11

In the light of the submissions made by Ld. Counsel appearing for parties it is made clear that possession of the property had already been taken, sale had been completed and 3rd party interest has been created. It appears that measures have not been challenged then and there, especially when possession was taken, sale notice L** was issued, etc. Only after completion of all the measures taken for taking possession, sale of property, etc. petitioner approached the Tribunal below with a delay of 97 days. Apart from the acceptability of delay of 97 days, there are various lx pronouncements by Hon'ble High Courts with regard to non applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in an application filed under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

Be that as it may, for entertaining the appeal, pre-deposit is mandatory. The amount outstanding as of now is Rs.1,89,59,000/. It is seen that possession had been taken and 3rd party interest has been created.

¶13

Under the said circumstances, this Tribunal directs the petitioner to deposit 40% of R.1,89,59,000/- towards pre-deposit.

¶14

At this juncture, Ld. Counsel for petitioner requested the Tribunal to grant a week's time to make the aforesaid pre-deposit.

¶15

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to deposit 40% of Rs.1,89,59,000/- which comes to Rs.75,83,600/- on or before 21.5.2025, failing which, appeal would stand rejected.

¶16

¶17

On deposit of Rs.7.5,83,600A on or before-21.5;2025,.respondents :'are restrained from creating party interest, effecting;change in revenue records With regard to ownership of the.property; from of Iz deposit tili‘next date of hearing:.

¶18

Wpre5iep0sit-s.hQUld.be fhade in the form of Demand Draff drawn in!'favour of the Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, payable sat Mumbai., In case ,pre-deposit Is matte within the stipulated period fas.me_ntloned above. Registry is directed to number the Appeal ifIt is otherwise in order and Registrar shall invest the, same in a Nationalized Bank, for a reasonable period and, ■renew itperiodically, tiirfuffher-ordersiare^passed. Post the matter ori-28.&201~5‘ for further proceedings; CHAIRPERSON, C^NNAl (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MU.MBAl) •SN

¶19

Amol Kashinath Gawade v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amol Kashinath Gawade v. Union 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

Similar cases

Mr Francis Harold Rosario versus Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited

Shilpi Bhatia versus Axis Bank

Shivkumar Shankarrao Deshpande versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge versus Union Bank of India

Chem Impex Usha Private Limited and Others versus Sammaan Capital Limited and Anr.

Uday Chhasiya versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd.