Disposed

Devendra Corporation v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

DRAT5 Jun 2025IA/307/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal addressed an interim application seeking a waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining an appeal against a DRT order. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 40% of the claimed amount in two instalments instead of granting a waiver, noting their failure to meet previous directives.

What did the court decide?

Appellants directed to deposit 40% of claimed amount in two instalments; Appeal entertained only upon compliance.

Devendra Corporation versus Unity Small Finance Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY AJepELL^TET^BUNAUMOMBAf (SiTTING.AT-CHENNAp

¶2

I.A. .No. ■307/20'25 (WoD)

¶3

¶4

Regular Appeal Dy btd; 811/2025

¶5

; Dated: O5/O&.2025;

¶6

THp .matter is^takei^ up fof hearing by way of;a Praecipe ■ filed By ^the Petitioners/Appellants for seeking urgent relief.

¶7

This Application is filed sdcking waiver-pf'statutory deposit, required tinder Section 18(1) of the SARFAESl-Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal., (

¶8

Qdunsel for:Pctitipriers/Appellants submitted that, . the/ petitioners/AppeUants filed SA.. No. 86/2025 challenging; Demand Notice; 'Possession Notice, proceeding, initiated under Section- 14 the SARFAESl Act, 2002. The S.A. .was finallydisposed;.of'on l&OS^OSS; Against'the said order, this,Appealis filed::along. with Waiver .AppUdatioh. He further 'Submitted, that the Pctitidhers/Appellahts are the' bpirpwers and in the. secured asset, A Pre-Pfimaxy School is- being run pn tenancy basis, and therefore,/prays for waiver.

¶9

Learned Counsel for Respondcnt^Bahk- submitted that the . order\irnpugncd waspassed on. the.basis of'the .submission made Jby the 'Petitibners/Appellants; showing, their, willingness, to settle the loan dues. -After considering the rival submissiohs of parties, ' Learned Presiding Officer passed ah order directing the , Petitipnefs/AppcDants to deposit Rs.24 Lakhs oh of be'fofe 3JLp5j2p25^and.jfemaining amount on; or before 30.06/2025. Even the ^ instalment of'Rs.24' Lakhs was not deposited by1116

¶10

;•

¶11

Petitioners/Appellants. Thus, the Respondent Bank strongly
opposes the Waiver Application.
In reply, Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants
submitted that, the Bank submitted before the tribunal that
EMIs, aggregating to Rs.24 LaJchs including overdue amount, there dre huge outstanding due from Petitioners/Appellants and if the Petitioners/Appellants pay the overdue amount with three
before the date of possession, the Respondent Bank shall regularise the loan account of Petitioners/Appellants, and if the Petitioners/Appellants want to settle the entire outstanding
regularise the loan account of Petitioners/Appellants, despite the Petitioners/Appellants are willing to deposit Rs.24 Lakhs. Considered the rival submissions and perused records. The issue with regard to regularisation the account is the matter to be considered in the main Appeal along with other amount, then, they have to pay 50% of the outstanding dues along with proposal for settlement. The Bank is not prepared to
points raised in the grounds of the Appeal. The fact remains
that the Petitioners/Appellants have not paid Rs.24 Lakhs on or
before 31.05.2025 as directed by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT- I, Ahmedabad.

¶12

Pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining the Appeal. Tire
loan was sanctioned in tire year of 2022 and date of issuance of
Demand Notice on 04.12.2024 and the, amount claimed was
Rs.1,08,87,576.78p. Taking into consideration the amount due
and non-compliance of the direction of Learned Presiding Officer
in failing to deposit Rs.24 Lakhs on or before 31.05.2025, this
Tribunal directs the Petitioners/Appellants to tnake the pre
deposit of 40% of Rs.l,08,87,576.78p, in two equal instalments,
for entertaining the Appeal.

¶13

¶14

_, _further orders .are passed.
Post the case oh O/.O/iSOaS; for reporting compliance;
•PSA
i
If the 1® instalment is paid by the. Petitioners’/Appellants,
there shall be an ordbf .pf:stay of taking.possession.
I r
Admittedly.} 40% of Rs/l,08,87,576.7,815 would .come to
Rs.43,SSipaO^lpjrounded^ff-tdRe^a.SS.Oa;!,/-).
It is made clear that- failure to deposit of either of the
instalments, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such
deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar,. DRAT, Mumbai .is .to
invest, the ^same, in a. Nationalized Bank, from time to, time, till
(7N-CHAR0E, PRAT.'MUMBAij
^Therefore, the Petitiohefs/Appellants shall deposit
, Rs;43i55i03,l/-> in two instalments, I® instalment of
: Rs.2r,77,515j50p, on or before 19:.06.'2O25 and 2nd1 Instalment
' Rs.2 r,77,515,50p, pn or before 03.07:2025.

% I

I-

Devendra Corporation v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Corporation v. Unity Small Finance Bank Limited

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

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

Pradeep Gordhandas Vora versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Mrs Kiran Vijay Joshi versus Piramal Capital and Housing Limited

Mr Nilesh Radhakishan Gandhi and Others versus Jijau Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Ms Shirbhate Builders and Developers Through Its Prop Shri Rajesh Babasaheb Shirbhate versus Jijau Commercial Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

ms shastri agarbatties private limitade through its director mr kirti himmatbhai chandrana versus Tatacapital Limitade