Dismissed

Rajesh Mahendra Joshi v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

DRAT8 Aug 2025IA/495/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The tribunal rejected the application for a complete waiver of the pre-deposit requirement. It directed the appellants to deposit 40% of the recovery amount payable in two instalments to maintain the appeal against the bank's recovery measures under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellant directed to deposit Rs. 36,15,657 in two instalments (1st of Rs. 10 Lakhs by 11.08.2025, balance by 08.09.2025) to entertain the appeal.

Rajesh Mahendra Joshi versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 495/2025 (WoD) In Misc. Appeal Dy No. 926/2025

¶3

Dated: 08,08.2025

¶4

The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioners/Appellantsfor seeking urgent relief.

¶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 Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants filed S.A. No. 155/2025 challenging the measures taken under SARFAESI Act, especially, Notice issued under Section 13(4) and order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 20'02. When the S.A. was pending, the Petitioners/Appellants filed an Application in I.A. No. 1165/2025 to stay all further proceedings. The said Application was dismissed. Therefore, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application.

¶7

It is submitted that in Section 13(2) Demand Notice, Petitioners/Appellants were asked to send their Reply to Mr. Gurpal Singh/Mr. Rupesh Pawar, Contact No. +91 8097895337 at 7‘h Floor, Plot No. 7, Sector 125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201313, e-mail ID- [email protected], only. However, the Reply was sent to the place where they are sitting at Mumbai. When filing the Petition under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, the nine-pointer requirement has not been properly complied with. In Demand Notice, a sum of Rs.1,92,053/- is claimed as foreclosure amount. Even in the case of commercial loan, the foreclosure charges cannot be claimed unless borrower himself chooses to foreclose the account. Therefore, the very issuance of Section 13(2) Notice is illegal. The Petitioners/Appellants’ Income

¶8

Tax Return itself shows that the Petitioners/Appellants are facing financial difficulties. The Petitioners/Appellants further submitted that they have paid Rs. 10 Lakhs after issuance of Demand Notice. Thus, they seek wavier of pre-deposit.

¶9

Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank opposes this Application on the ground that Rs.90,39,143/- is due as on date. Petitioners/Appellants made OTS proposaJ for two times and it was not accepted by the Bank for the reason that the offer was J very low. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank further submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants have not paid any amount after issuance of Section 13 (2) Demand Notice. When the liability was accepted and OTS offer was made, it is not open to the Petitioners/Appellants to challenge the amount demanded. The Income Tax Return shows that the Petitioners/Appellants have poor income. When the Petitioners/Appellants are not even I| able to to pay pre-deposit amount, how they will pay the debt | amount and thus, opposes for complete waiver.

¶10

¶11

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records

¶12

In view of the submissions made by Learned Counsel for the parties and that the issues with regard to non-compliance of nine-pointer and the charging of amount for foreclosure will have to be considered at the time of main Appeal. It is seen from the Demand Notice dated 24.08.2023, the amount due as on 23.08.2023, is shown as Rs.76,63,733/-. This amount was enhanced due to calculation of interest, to Rs.90,39,143/- as on today.

¶13

Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40% of Rs.90,39,143/ would meet the requirement undei Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶14

Tax Return itself shows that the Petitioners/Appellants are facing financial difficulties. The Petitioners/Appellants further submitted that they have paid Rs. 10 Lakhs after issuance of Demand Notice. Thus, they seek wavier of pre-deposit.

¶15

Learned Counsel for Respondent. Bank opposes this Application on the ground that Rs.90,39,143/- is due as on date. Petitioners/Appellants made OTS proposal for two times and it was not accepted by the Bank for the reason that the offer was very low. Learned Counsel for Respondent Bank further submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants have not paid any amount after issuance of. Section 13 (2) Demand Notice. When the liability was accepted and OTS offer was made, it is not open to the Petitioners/Appellants to challenge the amount demanded. The Income Tax Return shows that the Petitioners/Appellants have poor income. When the Petitioners/Appellants are not even able to pay pre-deposit amount, how they will pay the debt amount and thus, opposes for complete waiver.

¶16

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶17

¶18

Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 40% of Rs.90,39,143/- would meet the requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶19

. ' J

¶20

...f- >4 . '

¶21

Admittedly, 40% of Rs.90,39,143/comes to Rs.36,15,657.20p(Rounded off to Rs.36,15,657/-).

¶22

Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit Rs.36,15,657/-, in two instalments, of which, the 1st instalment of Rs. 10 Lalchs shall be deposited on or before 11.08.2025 by 1.1 a.m., and balance amount of Rs.26,15,657/- shall be deposited on or before 08.09.2025.

¶23

If Petitioners/Appellants deposit the lot instalment of Rs. 10 Lakhs on or before 11.08.2025 by 11 a.m., taking of possession scheduled on 11.08.2025 shall be deferred till next hearing date.

¶24

If the Petitioners/Appellants fail to comply with the 1st instalment, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶25

It is made clear that on failure to deposit of either of the instalments, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed.

¶26

List the case on 11.09.2025, for reporting compliance.

¶27

CHAIRPERSON. DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT. MUMBAI)

¶28

PAM

Rajesh Mahendra Joshi v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Mahendra Joshi v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

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

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