Disposed

Ms Unique Pressing a Partnership Firm v. South Indian Bank

DRAT11 Aug 2025IA/497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the claimed dues (Rs. 2,08,93,740) in two instalments instead of granting waiver, noting that substantive issues regarding sale notice service and title will be heard in the main appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed appellant to deposit Rs. 2,08,93,740 in two instalments before DRAT Mumbai; matter posted for next hearing.

Ms Unique Pressing a Partnership Firm versus South Indian Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -MUMBAI

¶2

IA 497/2025 (WOP) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal Dv.No.1088/2025

¶4

Dated : 11.8.2025

¶5

Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant and Ld. Counsel for R1 Bank are present in VC.

¶6

This application is filed in Misc. Appeal Dy.no.1088/2025 seeking waiver of pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAE5I Act.

¶7

Ld. Counsel for petitioner/appellant submitted that petitioner filed SA No.165/2025 on the file of DRT, Pune, challenging the measure taken under the SARFAESI Act including the order passed by Ld. DM, Pune under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act dated 16.11.2023, sale t notice dated 13.1.2025, etc. Pending SA, petitioner filed IA No.1115/2025 to challenge the auction sale notice dated 28.2.2025. The said IA was dismissed by Ld. Presiding Officer. Therefore, this appeal is filed along with waiver application.

¶8

It is his further submission that as per the sale notice dated 28.2.2025, the bank initiated SARFAESI measures on the basis of the sale agreement in favour of the petitioner and without title deed no SARFAESI measures can be taken . It is also his submission that sale notice has not been served on this petitioner though it was served on other partners. Proof of affixture of the impugned sale notice on the secured asset is not produced. Name of the newspapers in which sale notice was published is not clear from the xerox copy produced. Therefore, he prays for entertaining this appeal without insisting for pre-deposit.

¶9

In reply, Ld. Counsel for first respondent bank submitted that impugned sale notice dated 28.2.2025 fixing the sale on 21.3.2025 is

¶10

...Contd./-

¶11

not challenged in SA No.165/2025. What was challenged in the aforesaid SA was the sale notice dated 13.1.2025. This is not the first sale attempt and there had been two earlier sale attempts that had failed. Property has been sold in auction, sale certificate was issued and registered and possession was also delivered to the auction purchaser. Due amount from the petitioner, as per the impugned sale notice is Rs.8,35,74.958.29p. She further submitted that in Maharashtra, there is a special enactment called "Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act? (MOFA) and under sections 3, 4 and 9 of the said Act, whenever, builder sells the property, he will enter into an agreement with the purchaser and after that he will hand over possession to the purchaser and when he sells all the units under a particular scheme, it will be conveyed in favour of the Society and the purchasers will become members of the society. Therefore, there is no need for title deed for initiating SARFAESI Act and the sale agreement would suffice. Thus contending, she opposed granting complete waiver of pre-deposit.

¶12

In reply to this, Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal below to amend the prayer in the SARFAESI application, SA 165/2025 for challenging the impugned sale notice and it is pending.

¶13

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶14

Admittedly, the impugned sale notice dated 28.2.2025 is not challenged in SA 165/2025. Only by filing IA 1115/2025, impugned sale notice was challenged. Amendment application filed challenging this sale notice in the main SA is said to be pending. As per the impugned sale notice, the amount demanded as due as on 27.2.2025 is Rs.8,35,74,958.29p. It is the submission^1 of the respondent bank that after classification of the account as a NPA, no amount has been paid by the petitioner towards the due.

¶15

Submission'of Ld. Counsel for the petitionerthat security interest cannot be enforced on the basis of sale agreement, issues regarding non service of sale notice on this petitioner, affixture of sale notice and publication of sale notice, all will be taken up during the hearing of main appeal.

¶16

Now, it is informed that property has been sold and third party interest is created. Therefore, this Tribunal takes into consideration the amount claimed in the impugned sale notice i.e., Rs.8, 35,74,95&.29p for determining the quantum of pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal Therefore, this Tribunal directs the petitioner to deposit 25% pf the .aforesaid amount to meet the requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining this appeal.

¶17

Accordingly, petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of Rs.8,35,74,958.29p, which comes to Rs.2,08,93,739.60p, rounded off to Rs.2,08,93,740/- in two equal instalments Within four weeks from today, of which, first instalment of Rs.1,04,46,870/- within two weeks from today; i.e., on or before 25.8,2025 and the second instalment of Rs.1,04,46,870/- within two weeks thereafter, i.e., on or before 8.9.2025, failing which; appeal would stand dismissed.

¶18

The pre-deposit should be made in the form of Demand Draft drawn in favour1 of the Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai payable at Mumbai. In case pre-deposit is made within the stipulated period as mentioned above, Registry, DRAT, Mumbai is directed to number the Appeal if it is otherwise in order and Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai shall invest the same in a Nationalized Bank for a reasonable period and renew it periodically, till further orders are passed.

¶19

Post the matter on 10.9.2025 for further proceedings.

¶20

CHAIRPERSON, d'^ATjCHENNAl (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)

¶21

Ms Unique Pressing a Partnership Firm v. South Indian Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Unique Pressing a Partnership Firm v. South Indian Bank

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

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

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

Rajesh Mahendra Joshi versus Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Kedarnath Sajjankumar and 3 Ors.

Ghanshyam fab and Ors. versus Bank of Baroda

Hdfc Bank Limited versus M/S Kalpatraru Promoters And Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others