The Appellate Tribunal allowed the regular appeal by granting a waiver of statutory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act. The court held the appellant was a bona fide purchaser and extended the existing status quo order.
I.A. No. 364/2025 (Waiver Application) allowed; status quo order extended till next hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBT RECOVERY-APPELLATE TRIBUNADMUmBAI (SITTINGAT'^CHENNAI) I;A. NO; 364/2025 (WoD) In Regular Appeal Dy No'. 913/2025
Dated: 08.07.2025
This Appeal is filed against the: order passed in M.A» No. 38/2025 hi S.A. No. 39/2017 along with Waiver Application.
This Application is filed secking waiver of statutory deposit required under- Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for .eritreating the Appeal.
Learned Counsel for Petitipncr/Appellant submitted that the Petitioner/Appeliant filed S,A. No. 39/2017 challenging.themeasures taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The said S.A. was dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.()4.2022. Therefore, he filed bn Application in M.A. Ko-. 45/2023 for restoration of aforesaid the S.A. and restoring the status, quo order granted on 08.04.2022. Unfortunately, this M,A. No. 45/2023 was also dismissed on 11,02.2025.
This M.A. 38/,2025 was filed to restore M.A. No. 45/2023. After contest, M.A. No. 38/202,5 was dismissed on 21.04,2025. Thereforie, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application.
It is the submission, of Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appeliant that the Petitioner/Appellant had purchased this property i.e.f entire 1« floor building measuring 4800 sq. ft. from the1 builder M/s. AAWEZ Enterprises by a registered sale agreement dated 19.10.2006, whereas Respondent Nq.3 namely Mrs.. Jfcyani- Kashinath Jadhav, said to have .been purchased from the .same builder through a sale, agreement dated 16.12.2011, The Petitioner/Appeliant has purchased the property five, years
prior to purchase of the property by Respondent No.3. The Bank, without properly verifying the exigency of registered agreement of sale, proceeded under SARFAESI proceedings. He is neither a borrower nor guarantor and he, is the owner of the property. Therefore, he is not required to make pre-deposit to entertain the Appeal. Learned Counsel for 1 st "Respondent Bank has no serious objection with regard to waiver of. pre-deposit However, he submits that this Appeal is not maintainable since the Appeal is filed with a delay of 27 days in filing the Appeal and it is barfed by limitation. In the light of the facts elucidated above, this Tribunal is of the view that the Petitioner/Appellant has genuine and bonqfide claim in view of the purchase of property on the basis of a registered sale agreement dated 19.10.2006. Therefore, pre deposit is not required to entertain this Appeal. Accordingly, l.A. No. 364/2025 (WoD) is allowed. Registry, DRAT, Mumbai is directed to number this Appeal, if it is otherwise in order and filed in tipie. The status quo order already granted is extended till next hearing. (iWn CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE. DRAT, MUMEJAJ) PAM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act is required when appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the property.
Whether the appeal filed within 27 days is barred by limitation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/Appellant
1st Respondent Bank
Mrs. Mayani Kashinath Jadhav
CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
