Disposed

Ms Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

DRAT10 Jul 2025IA/393/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order addresses an interim prayer for waiver of the pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act pending appeal. The court calculates that reducing the appeal amount by the amount already paid leaves a balance where 25% is still required. It directs the appellant to deposit the calculated 25% balance in two installments before specifying dates.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit Rs. 1,79,19,938 in two instalments by 31.07.2025 and 21.08.2025 for entertaining the appeal.

Ms Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd. versus Bank of Baroda — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

‘i

¶2

DEBT JffiCQVERY-APPELU^^ (SITTiN&AT ^CHENNAI) '• I.A,.No. 393/2025 (WoD) : Ifi

¶3

Misc. AppealjjyNb. 969/2025

¶4

■:Datcd:,10.07.202.5 - The ^matter is ’taken up; for hearing by jway nf^a; Praecipe; i < filed by'theTPetitioners/Appcllants for seeking .urgent relief. . j ^-T-his Application is filed seeking ■waiver'of'statutory deposit i required- under Section 4/8(1) of the SARFAESI. Act, 2002-,. fdf;; entertaining, the Appeal.: ’ ^Learned 'Cbunsel.for.RetitJoners/AppeUajitsjSUbmitted^that’ i -'rf; ?the:PeHtibriers/Appeilarits-fiied- S;A. Nd:.193/.2O25 challenging the; ; Measures taken under the, SARFAESI Act,. 2002, ^including. the ' i measures- taken,, for faking possession by .issuing-,Possession ; ' Xotice dated 07.03.2025 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act,. • :,'20.62s. Pending- SAf an interim prayer sought for restraining the ^Respondent Bank- from taidng; p&SscSsibh of ithc secured’asset i was^eciihed On 26.06.2025.

¶5

it is: ‘the: submission of Learned Counsel, for ^Pefitioners/AppeUants that* :as per the 'Demand Notice: dated ’01.61/2625, ,thc: sum: demanded as due, was S^sf^^^^SS^Spi^he^disputeds witlrregard to'the quanturii.of’ ! .amount.. The: demand was™ raised- 'high to an extent' :of;'-Rs.'36 .Lakhs. He tfu’fther submitted that- the loan was granted uhder three heads; the thirdiloari sanctioned finder thchead Corporate Auto Joan to; an extent of Rs:27.5Q Lakhs is- hot coycrcd under .mortgage, rand,, therefore, the; Bank issuing ^Demand . Notice, •.clubbing,-both the unsecured loan, with scoured loan;..'is riot ■correct After. receiving the -Demand Notice; .Pctitiohcrs/Appeirants sent their objection to the demand and,the -

¶6

said objection is not replied as mandated under Section 13 (3A) of

¶7

SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶8

It is his farther submission that after issuance of Demand Notice, the Petitioners/Appellants paid a sum. of Rs.1.70 Crores and it was received by the Bank. This statement was made in the Affidavit filed in support of Stay Application and Waiver Application. The Tribunal has not considered the pleas of Petitioners/Appellants on merits and dismissed the prayer of stay. Therefore, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application. Despite service of notice to Respondent- Bank,^none appeared for the Respondent Bank. As per the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants, it is made known that they challenge the quantum of demand due made in Section 13 (2) Notice, dubbing of unsecured loan with secured loan, non. reply to the objection raised to 13 (2) Demand Notice, etc. HoweVeri from the impugned order, this Tribunal finds that the. Bank has sent reply to tire objection sent by Petitioners/Appellants to the Demand Notice. Only for the subsequent representation, the objection was not sent and it is not required by the Bank to give reply to the successive objection, and finding that the measures had been taken properly by following the procedure, Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the prayer of stay. Be that as it may. The issues raised by Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants can be decided only in the main Appeal. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants that the l^ Petitioner/Appellant. is a going concern and there are 200 workers working, originally there was due of Rs. 31 Crores and it has been reduced to just above Rs.7 Crore. The Petitioners/Appellants are ready to settle the loan due

?•

i|:

i X <r

-'WithIBank. However, the Bank-i's not. willihg to. cooperate. Thus,-

¶14

I < theyseeklehiehcy.in pre-depositi

¶15

¶16

' Injthe' said; cifcufhstajriccs that the original amount; ,pf Rs.31 Crores has; now been reduced at the time, of issuance of demand, Notice to Rsl ^■i74i79i752;43P. and after the Demand, ^btice; it isnlaimcd by Petitioners/Appellants in' the Affidavit that I -.a: sum bf ’Rs.'liyd Crores was paid’,, itiiis Tribunal’ is'; of the view. Tthat. directing the: Petitioners/Appellants to., deposit: 25®/o bf Rs.7,04;79,752/- (Rs- 8,74i79;:752143P minus Rs.l,70;00,0007-): | would, meet the requmement under Section; 18 (1) of SARFAESI I Acti-.SOOS, for entertaining, the Appeal.

¶17

..Admittedly, 25% of Rs;7,04,79,752/edmes to

¶18

Rs.l'79;i9,9.38/-.

¶19

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shalT deposit |: Rsi;79,19#3&A tw0 equal instalments,. 1?‘ instalment of I’ Rs.88:,0.9i?69,/- shall be deposited on., or before. 31.p7.'2025: .and

¶20

: '2n<i instalment ofiRsrSS,09,969/- shall be deposited, on -or before 21.0'8.2025. i It is made clear that on failure to .deposit, of. either o'flthe

¶21

I :instalnients,. .the Appeal shall stand rejected. .On making such

¶22

deposit by Petitioners/AppeUahts, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to

¶23

■ invest the same .in a Nationalized Darik: from tiinc to time, till f further, orders are passed.

¶24

Pdstthe case on^SJOS^OSS.rfor/repdftijlg corhpiiahce.

¶25

¶26

¶27

CHWRPERS^ySS^; CHBNNA[ i(ir«.cnAROE?DRAir,'MyM»y), PAM.

Ms Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Geetanjali Woollens Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of Baroda

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

Mohan Harakchand Bhandari and 3 Ors. versus Bank of India

Avinash Bharat Pawar versus the South Indian Bank Ltd.

Pushpam Plaza Private Limited versus Punjab National Bank

Mayur Mahesh Purswani versus Central Bank of India and 2 Ors.

mukund j rana and Ors. versus the Authorized Officer LIC Houising Finance Limited

Shriram Enterprises and Ors. versus Union Bank of India