Partly allowed

Renu Dogra v. Union of India and Ors.

DRAT23 Jul 2025IA/401/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this waiver appeal under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's request to dispense with the pre-deposit. Despite the petitioner's claim of non-service and reliance on a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that with the property sold via auction, the sale consideration forms the basis for calculating the requisite 30% deposit to entertain the appeal.

What did the court decide?

I.A. for waiver of deposit dismissed; Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.75,57,015/- comprising two equal installments as per specified dates.

Renu Dogra versus Union of India and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

1 i i 1 i I

¶2

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
l.A. No. 401/2025 (WoD) In Misc. Appeal Dy No. 876/2025

¶3

Dated: 23.07.2025

¶4

Costs paid. I.A. Dy. No. 877/2025 (GoD) is allowed.

¶5

This Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶6

Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellaht submitted that Petitioner/Appeliant filed TSA No. 07/2023 challenging the measures taken under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 including the order passed by the Learned Additional District Magistrate> Thane in Securitisation Application No. 1311/2022 on 31.03.2023. It is his submission that the Flat in question was purchased by the Petitioner/Appeliant and her husband jointly. The Petitioner/Appeliant is in possession of Share Certificate. It appears that her husband borrowed loan from the Respondent Bank and defaulted. The Petitioner/Appeliant has not received any of notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The reason is that the marriage with her husband had been distracted, and in the proceedings initiated for divorce, divorce was granted. If the Petitioner/Appeliant could establish that one of the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4)’ had not been served on the Petitioner/Appeliant, all subsequent measures would fall to ground. Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant further submitted that the Petitioner/Appeliant filed l.A. No. .108/2025 seeking injunction and the said l.A. was dismissed stating that the Petitioner/Appeliant had not made prima facie case, and balance

¶7

of convenience tilts in favour Respondent ARC. However, the dispossession was deferred on Petitioner/AppeUant depositing Rs.l Crore. Against this order, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application.

¶8

It is his further Submission that this order did not determine any amount due from the Petitioner/Appellant, and therefore, the Petitioner/Appellant is not liable to make 'any deposit. In support of his case, he relied on the judgment of Honhle Supreme Court in Sunshine Builders and Developers vs. HDFC Bank Limited through the Branch Manager & Ors, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC1234.

¶9

In response, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 Institution submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant is a co borrower along with her husband. They availed loan of Rs.70,80,344/-. All notices have been properly served on the Petitioner/Appellant. The Petitioner/Appellant had not challenged the Possession Notice and the Sale Notice. The possession of the mortgage property was taken on 17.01.2025. Thereafter, e-auction sale was held on 29.04.2025 and the property was sold for Rs.2,51,90,051/-. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 Institution further submitted that still there is amount due to Institution from the borrower. Thus, she opposes complete waiver.

¶10

In reply to her submission, Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant is totally not aware of the proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act starting from 13(2) Demand Notice, 13(4) Possession Notice sand Sale Notice.

¶11

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶12

Court was set aside. was Rs.58,35,680/-. issuance of Demand Notice. Meanwhile, the property had been sold on 29.04.2025 for Rs.2,51,90,051/-. It is seen from the records produced, what was challenged in 'TSA is only order passed by the Learned Additional District Magistrate, Thane in Securitisation Application No. 1311/2022. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 Institution submits that all the Notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) have been properly served on the Petitioner/Appellant. There is a finding to that effect recorded by Leemed Presiding Officer in the impugned order that with regard to service of 13(2) Demand Notice and It is also recorded that the due So far as the judgment relied on by Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant of Honble Supreme Court in Sunshine *Bunders and Developers case, this is a case where two Interim Applications were filed for impleading the Auction Purchaser and for condonation of delay in preferring the Application. When Appeal is filed against rejection of this Application before DRT, a question was asked as. to whether pre-deposit is mandatory? Honble Supreme Court expressed its view that “any order’ found passed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, should be given some meaningful interpretation. So, any and every order that may be passed by DRT, if sought to be challenged, be subject to pre-deposit, and Honblc Supreme Court has remanded the case for the purpose of reconsideration. Thus, order of Hon.’blfc High 13(4) Possession Notice. procedure has been followed by the Assignor of the Respondent ARC. As per Demand Notice, the amount due as on 29.07.2013 We arc now in 2025, twelve years after
Here in this case, though Appeal is filed against impugned order rejecting the Interlocutory Application in SARFAESI proceedings, there is no need for the Tribunal to investigate into the amount due from the borrower. Because the due amount was

Court was set aside.
was Rs.58,35,680/-.
issuance of Demand Notice. Meanwhile, the property had been
sold on 29.04.2025 for Rs.2,51,90,051/-.
It is seen from the records produced, what was challenged
in 'TSA is only order passed by the Learned Additional District
Magistrate, Thane in Securitisation Application No. 1311/2022.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 Institution submits that
all the Notices issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) have been
properly served on the Petitioner/Appellant. There is a finding to
that effect recorded by Leemed Presiding Officer in the impugned
order that with regard to service of 13(2) Demand Notice and
It is also recorded that the due
So far as the judgment relied on by Learned Counsel for
Petitioner/Appellant of Honble Supreme Court in Sunshine
**Bunders and Developers *case, this is a case where two Interim
Applications were filed for impleading the Auction Purchaser and
for condonation of delay in preferring the Application. When
Appeal is filed against rejection of this Application before DRT, a
question was asked as. to whether pre-deposit is mandatory?
Honble Supreme Court expressed its view that “any order’ found
passed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, should be given
some meaningful interpretation. So, any and every order that
may be passed by DRT, if sought to be challenged, be subject to
pre-deposit, and Honblc Supreme Court has remanded the case
for the purpose of reconsideration. Thus, order of **Hon.’blfc **High
13(4) Possession Notice.
procedure has been followed by the Assignor of the Respondent
ARC. As per Demand Notice, the amount due as on 29.07.2013
We arc now in 2025, twelve years after

Here in this case, though Appeal is filed against impugned
order rejecting the Interlocutory Application in SARFAESI
proceedings, there is no need for the Tribunal to investigate into
the amount due from the borrower. Because the due amount was

¶13

f(y^

¶14

crystallized and then Demand Notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. As already stated, possession of the property had been taken and property was sold on 29.04.2025 for Rs.2,51,90,051/-. It is the case of Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 Institution that there is still amount due to the Institution from the borrower. In the said circumstances, when the due amount is crystallized, property is sold and amount is still due to be recovered, This Tribunal takes the sale consideration of Rs.2,51,90,051/- as basis for determination of pre-deposit. Therefore, directing the Petitioner/Appellant to deposit 30% of Rs.2,51,90,051/- would meet the requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal. Admittedly, 30% of Rs,2,51,90,051/comes to Rs.75,57,015.30 (Rounded off to Rs.75,57,015/-). Therefore, Petitioner/Appellant shall deposit Rs.75,57,015/- in two equal instalments. lat instalment of Rs.37,78,507.50p/- shall be deposited on or before 06.08.2025 and 2nd instalment of Rs.37,78,507,50p/- shall be deposited on or before 20.08.2025. It is made clear that on failure to deposit of either of the instalments, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioner/Appellant, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed. List the case on 22.08.2025, for reporting compliance. CHAIBPERSWP. DRAT. CHENNAI fN^IlARGE, DRAT, M(jMDAl| PAM

Renu Dogra v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Dogra v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Ganesh Gaikward versus State Bank of India

Mohd Firoz Mohd Azad Sheikh versus Indian Overseas Bank

Nitin Eknath Pawar versus Bharat Cooperative Bank Mumbai Limited

Ms Gagan Enterprises th its prop satvinderkaur h sindhu versus South Indian Bank

Mr Prakash Shankar Naidu and Anr. versus State Bank of India

Amrapali Anil Patil versus Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Private Limited