Partly allowed

Shri Vilas Eknath Nandgude v. Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

DRAT8 Aug 2025IA/491/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application for waiver of the statutory deposit required to entertain an appeal under the SARFAESI Act was partially allowed. Instead of a complete waiver, the Tribunal directed a 40% deposit of the sale proceeds, payable in two installments, considering the appellant's medical needs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the applicant to deposit 40% of the sale amount (Rs. 1,28,40,000) in two equal installments within specified timelines.

Shri Vilas Eknath Nandgude versus Sammaan Capital Limited… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)

¶2

I.A. No. 491/2025(WoD) In Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1202/2025

¶3

Dated: 08.08.2025

¶4

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

¶5

Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant filed S.A. No. 307/2024 challenging the measures taken under SARFAESI Act, 2002 including the measures taken under 13(4) of Possession Notice and sale of the property. The main S.A. is still pending. The property had been sold. I.A. No. 2147/2024 was filed to set aside, the sale and that Application was dismissed. As against the said dismissal, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant that Petitioner's wife fell ill and due to the medical expenses, the Petitioner/Appellant is not able to make pre-deposit.

¶6

It is seen from the Sale Notice dated 12.08.2024, the amount demanded as due, is Rs.2,08,46,679/as on 31.08.2024. Now the property is sold and a third party interest has been created. As per the Sale Certificate, the sale amount is Rs.3.21 Crores.

¶7

According to Learned Counsel for Bank) the property was sold for Rs.3.21 Crores. Learned Counsel for Bank also submitted that the amount outstanding, as on today, is Rs.7,97,19,875/-. Thus, she opposes for complete waiver.

¶8

Learned Counsel for Auction Purchaser also opposes the Waiver Application and submits that the possession was delivered in the year 2025.

¶9

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. In view of the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties, and taking into consideration of the fact that the Petitioner/Appellant is incurring medical expenses, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioner/Appellant to deposit 40% of Rs.3.21 Crores, would meet the requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶10

Admittedly, 40% of Rs.3,21,00,000/comes to

¶11

Rs. 1,28,40,000/-.

¶12

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs.1,28,40,000/- in two equal instalments, 1st instalment of Rs.64,20,000/- shall be deposited on or before 29.08.2025 and 2nd instalment of Rs.64,20,000/- shall be deposited on or before 19.09.2025.

¶13

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.

¶14

List the case on 23.09.2025, for reporting compliance.

¶15

town CHAIRPERSON", URAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE; DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶16

PAM

Shri Vilas Eknath Nandgude v. Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vilas Eknath Nandgude v. Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd.

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

Similar cases

Akshay Anil Sarda versus Shri Mahalaxmi Co. Operative Bank Ltd. and 6 Ors.

Mr Vipul Kanubhai Gadhesariya and Anr. versus the Authorized Officer Icici Bank

Ms Reefer India Logistics And 3 Ors. versus Bank Of Baroda And Anr.

Omprakash Tejnarayan Singh and Anr. versus Icici Bank Limited

Supreme Equipments Private Limited versus M/s Jyoti Paper Udyog Limited

Rajesh Mahendra Joshi versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited