Disposed

Raghunath Maruti Kadam v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT9 Jun 2025IA/312/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal examined a waiver application under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Noting insufficient title deeds for the appellants, the Tribunal rejected a full waiver but directed a conditional 50% pre-deposit of Rs. 48.50 Lakhs to entertain the appeal, with a deadline for payment.

What did the court decide?

Waiver of statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was rejected in full. Petitioners/Appellants directed to deposit 50% (Rs. 48.50 Lakhs) in two equal installments to entertain

Raghunath Maruti Kadam versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Specific Performance | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT'REGOVERY' APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAl . (SITTING At -CHENNAI) .LA. No. 3i2/’2025 (WoD) in Regular.Appeal Dy. .No, 1415/2024 ;GatcciVt)9.06.2025.

¶2

"The matter is taken lip for hearing by way of a Praecipe .filed by tiie PefiUofiers/Appeliants for.scekirig urgent relief.

¶3

This Application i§ filed seeldng waiver- of statutory, deposit teguired. .under Section 18(1). of the SARFAESI-Act, 200'2, for : entertaining the. Appeal.

¶4

‘The Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted ithaf Petitioners/Appellants filed SA No. .93/20.15 challenging the: ; Possession Notice dated 12.0972013- as contemplated under ; notice dated 02.09.-2009 in respect of Flat No. 7 (103) and 8 (104) . of the' Applicant Nd. 1. Flat No. 'S (101) of the Applicant No. 2 and : ,Flat;No. 6 (1,02) of the Appellant No. 3. After contest, SA-was, dismissed. Therefore, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver ‘ Application.

¶5

:lt ia the submission of. the Learned Counsel,, for the Pctitidricrs/Appellants that Petitioners/Appellants are. neither ■ hprrbwefs hpf guarantors. Petitioncrs/Appellants arc the . owners of the property in which they seek the, relief. The first: .Petitioner/Appellant ?is the, owner, of the Flat Nos. 103 and, 104,. .Oh the basis of that, he is. the land owner and he gave' his-land for1 development of flats. To establish :his ownership, first ; Petitioner/Appellant produced a.Developnient Agreement, ahd.rio sale deed in favour of first Petitioner/Appellant, is produced;. tSeCohd Petitioner/AppeUant is the 'owner of Flat No,. 101. in. support of his ownership, the. second Petitioner/Appellant produced .a registered Sale A^eement. dated 0440.2004.

¶6

¶7

Third However, it is candidly admitted that, so far, no Suit is filed for enforcing sale agreement for registering the .sale deed.
owners of the property, they are entitled for the property, they are in possession Petitioner/Appellant is the owner of Flat No. 102. In support of the ownership of third Petitioner/Appellant, no title deed is produced. Thus, Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that Petitioners/Appellants are the
of the property, they are sought to be dispossessed and therefore, this Appeal is filed against the order dated 31.05.2024 of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Mumbai. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank opposes this
Application on the ground that first Petitioner/Appellant has produced only an unregistered Sale Agreement dated 24.05.2003
support of the he claimed. Second ownership in
Petitioner/Appellant produced a registered Sale Agreement dated 04.10.2004 that came into existence subsequent to the. creation of mortgage dated 22.09.2004. Third Petitioner/Appellant has
not produced any documents in support of his ownership. Third
Petitioner/Appellant had created 3rd party right in favour of
Pctitioner/Appellant namely Snehalata daughter of first
Sonawane. the bonafide Petitioners/Appellants are not
claimants, and thus. Securitisation Application filed was
dismissed. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is seen from the Submission of the Learned Counsel for
the parties, first Petitioner/Appellant stake his claim of the
ownership of the property only on the basis of an Unregistered
document and development agreement Second
Petitioner/Appellant relied on the registered agreement that came
into the. existence subsequent to Third mortgage.
Petitioner/Appellant has not produced any documents in respect
so far, it appears that, of the ownership he claimed.

¶8

■As per the Demand Notice .dated
the -amount
Claim is.Rs.23,88,713/- with interest It is .submitted by Leai-ncd.
Counsel for Bank that as of.now, the,amount due.is.Rs.91Lakhs.
I’etitiprici'./Appeiiant Nos. 1, and' '2 had not taken, arijr steps' for
ehftircingl the- sale agreement for 'getting the sale deed, registered ■
jin; their, name; Therefore; Petitioners/-AppeUants .cannot be
considered .as- bonq/ide claimants. ■Howevcri these issues'Cannot
■be'cohsidiifed how at .this stage and ,it can. be decided ^only -in the1
. rnam.Appdal?
it is made clear '.that failure to deposit of cither :df the
instalments; :thc Waiver -Application Shall stand dismissed and
,ihe Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such ,deposit by
Petitioners/Appellah.ts, Registrari DRAT, Mumbai .'is to invest the
Pre-deposit is mandatory' under Section 18(1) nf the.
SARFAES1 Act; 2002, for-phtertaihing the Appeal. In the .said
circumstances, this Tribunal directsithe^^
to
. make:prC‘deposit 50% 6fRs'..:9'LLakhS;.ih two equal.instalmbnts;
for entertaining the-AppCal.
Admittedly, 50?/o of ■Rs.gi Lakhs would come, to Rs.^SO
■ Lakhs.
Therefore, Petitioners/AppMlants shall' deposit .Rs.4S.501
Lakhs, in -two ^instalments, l.^ ihstainieht of-RSi22.75 Lakhs on or
before ,iO:G6.'2d25 and-2n'3 instalment of Rs.22.-75 Lakhs "dn.of
before 14.07.2025;
If first instalment is,'paid by tomorrow' i.e., .10«06t2025?
^taking of possession shall -tie deferred; If Petitioners/Appellants.
Tail to deposit the first instalment on or ’before’ 10.06.2025, the:
Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed with taking of,
possessioh.

¶9

¶10

same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to tirhd; till further orders ard passed.
List the matter on 16.07.2025 for reporting compliance.
CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAi flN-GHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)
PAM

Raghunath Maruti Kadam v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghunath Maruti Kadam v. Kotak Mahindra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devendra Corporation versus Unity Small Finance Bank 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.

Candour Butyl Pvt. Limited versus Catholic Syrian Bank Limited

Naresh Kumar Gupta HUF versus Canara Bank

Dharmendra R Singh versus State Bank of India