Appeal against sale of secured asset. Tribunal fixed deposit amount as 4% of actual sale price not notified reserve price. Deferment allowed contingent on installment payment within specified time. Appeal rejected on default.
Possession deferred; Interim deposit of Rs. 80,35,800 directed by 10.07.2025; Failure leads to rejection of appeal.
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.
■i i
'DEBT,I^GOVERY.APPELLATE;fRlBUNAi>MUMBAI (3lltriNG] AT -CHENNAI)
l.A. bio. 382/2025 (WoD)
In
Misc.rApp^
Dated: 09:07.2025
'Hie inattcr' is taken-up for -hcaring by sway of a Praecipe i' fil&d by tlie-Peti'dbners/.Appeiiants’fbr^see'king urgent-relief.
•faie’ Application is -filed seeking waiver of the statutory deposit.required urider Section 18(1) ofthe SARFAESl Actr-lOO^, 1 forentertainthe.Appeal.
Learned Counsellor Pctitioners/Appeliants submitted .that ; ■the .Petitioners/Appellahts filed. S.A. No. 48672025 challenging the measures taken, -in pursuance; of Sale Notice' /dated ,13.01.2025,;-sale, issuance, of^sale certificate,^symbolic possession notice dated- 27.10.2023: and order passed by Learned District MSgisti-ate :on ■2ii02i!2024. He also filed: :].A.r No. ,1557/2025 /seeking'Stay of'proceedings; ph rejection of aforesaid I.A., this Appeal is filed along,with.Waiver Application. It is his submission that the Pctitioners/Appeliants availed loan of Rs. 2 Crores.and. madeJsOme payinchts. Without giving 30 days’ clear notice, the iproperty was sold. As perthe’valuation report, obtained by-I* i ' Respondent Batiks the. value of property is' shown as RaS/T^SSipOO/- but the; property was sold for Rs.AiplJ^OOO/-. The Auction. Purchaser. is not, a bonafide purchaser 'but he is proxy of Mr. Vijay Mane, who is Petitioners/Appeliants! partner and he pldyed fraud on Petitibners/Appcliants. Therefore, the Petitibners/Appellahts^seek waiver;
Leanicd Counsel for the latRcsponderit Bank, submitted ;that Petitiohers/AppcUants .hayemdt made any effort to repay-the loan. When the mortgage was subsisting, the
■v
Pctitibriefs/Appiiiikiits'soldjaport,ofthe'ftfopefty10 briefc Vajay Wane' through, a1 Said: Deed •dated? O2;03i262.3?% playihg finudr ,..' i: 'ThU property hasriieen sold,^Me;CeTtificAte'has^eeririssued?^a possession copid hotbe taken for want ofppHce|assistance.
Similar .submissions were. ihadS; UH behaif 'd£ Ecamcd' ^G6i^sel;f6r;Audtidh Purchase as^wcll.
.!Gdnsidpi^d^e;nyJ^'sti%im^ perused thc^ecSrSsn
I .!Gdnsidpi^d^e;nyJ^'sti%im^ perused thc^ecSrSsn ■ . :-It is seen.' 'from' ;the..-Sale Npti&fe’ dated' i3?01220i25; ■Ute! ; -ahiount Hue' iff shown- as Rs.lf90^6,^V;98ji^-Sm:12’!0^.?2b25; the;. .resefye price’ for salc of ' property Was- fixed nt i fes4:;Oi;69iQD07-., THe prbptrt^was. sold, forh Rs^iOl^Opp/^ and ■theri’etiGonersyAppcllcmtS'havd ■chaIlcnged''thc-!Sale; Nptice, 5the-^iidU(aid«^fewa’is.suto^^T sme^itificate^there^ 1’amqurit' .of sale price, i.e.. Rs.4,01,79,000/-. is' taken into. , rconsid^ationifdr/fre^^o'sit '
; IncviewnfthefaBt^ ? tifivd party interest is: created^ thio Triburiai :is .Of, 'the, :.vie\V . j /Hrctting the PeriGpriers/AppcUahts: hr deposit 4p%; -df : would meet ithe.jeqin^eht Under 'Section. IB: - (irdf'SAOTAESl~A(^ 200M^ i ", ' - ■ i-
I i
■ ■ Admittediy,, W<>; of" W ' ucomcs tft . R6;i,6p.,•74,600-/-.
•Therefore, Petitioners/Appellahts shail, /deposit. . .Xs;l;6pj71,600/- In, ietpid* At -this juncture;. Reamed. GdUnsel for' IPetitioners/Appellahls isubrfiiteVtbat the possession'lshschedule^ tpmbrrdw he.^ iO107v2O25. Ih .thatcasC, _........ this Tribunal .directs/that the, I*:iifstaliiierit‘jof Rs.- SP;3.5i8pp/- to
,bd .paid.dri :Oif Before: 12- noon By' fphiprfdW iiie.,;"a0.O.7:2O?25 ’4hd •s
1^
?
J
| > instalment: of.Rs.80;35-;800/-S8han! be deposited.on.or before ; ^d8i2d25; |
|---|
| :Rost the^casc.on 08:.0.8?-2025, for reporting.•compliance: J PAM It is made cleaf that dh failure' to .deposit of cither of the- instalments, the Appeal shall-stand rejected. On .making; such. ' ■ .deposit by^Pctitioners/.Appellants, ’Registraf, DRAT,; Mumbai is' to; : ( invest the: same In. a Nationalized "Bank; from time to time, tUl : further; orders are passed: i jf Petitioners/Appellaiits fail to deposit Rs. SOiSS.aoO/i on' or 'before 12 noon by .tomorrow i.e., ;10.d7r2b25, the: iB‘ i Respondent .Bank is: at liberty to. proceed, further' in accordance ■ withlaw. •if. Petitioners/AppeUants deposit ;Rs.80,35,860/- on. or before. 12 noon by ■tomorrow ilei, 10.07:2025, taking of .possession -shall' be deferred till-'next heating'date. ^CHAlRPERSdHTbM^ENNAi (IN-bHARGE/pRAf,, MUMBAI) |
i
i
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are eligible for waiver of statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Whether possession schedule would amount to acceptance of deposit under the aforementioned provision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioners/Appellants
Respondent Bank
CHAIRPERSON DRAT Chennai
PRATIBHA MUMBAI (IN CHARGE)
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
