Partly allowed

Uday Chhasiya v. Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

DRAT14 May 2025IA/568/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses an application seeking waiver of the statutory deposit under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Tribunal held that waiver is not applicable as the property sale and possession transfer were complete. It directed the appellant to deposit 40% of the sale proceeds in two equal installments by specific dates to entertain the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 59,05,831/- in two equal installments by 04.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 to entertain the appeal.

Uday Chhasiya versus Hdb Financial Services Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

¶2

•DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI

¶3

(SITTING AT -GHENN'AI)

¶4

I.A-. No. 568/2024 (WoD)

¶5

¶6

Wise. AppealEy No. 1737/2024

¶7

Eated:: 14.05.202,5

¶8

This.Application is filed seeking Waiver of statutory' deposit required under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESl, 2002, for entertaining th'e- Appeal.

¶9

Lcarhed .Counsel for Petitidncr/Appellant submitted that Petitioner/Appellant filed SA :494,./2023 challenging the measures taken under Section 13(2) and 13(4} of SA&FAESI Act, 2002. In pursuance- of Sale Notice dated 14.06,2024. the property was .sold on 01--07.2024, for Rs,.1,47,64,578/-. In Demand Notice dated 21.0,7.20,1.7<, the aihourit, demanded was Rs. 57i05;367/-. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant hthaf Petitioner/Appellant was not served with Demand : Notice; The -Acknowledgement Card, produced by , Respondent: Institution- in support of service of Demand Notice kdoes hot bear the -signature of Petitioner/’Appellant. Learned'Presiding Officer, without considering, the Application filed in T.A.(E-A23^estr,amihg the Respondent Institution from- confirming the sale of property and to maintain the Status quo regarding the possession of the • property, directcdthe Petitipher/Appeilant to approach the Respondent

¶10

Institution for settlement Therefore, this Appeal is filed along with Waiver Application.

¶11

Learned Counsel for Respondent Institution opposes this Waiver Application on the ground that the property was sold on 7th attempt, sale has been registered and possession has also been handed over to the- Auction Purchaser, and therefore, nothing survives in this Appeal.

¶12

In the light of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel, appearing for the parties and that the sale had already taken place, a 3rd party interest has beencreated, possession is also delivered to the Auction Purchaser and the property was sold only on. 7th' attempt, this Tribunal, is of the view that directing the Petitioner/Appellant to deposit 40% of the amount mentioned in the Sale 'Certificate i,e,,, Rs. 1.,47,64,578/-, would meet the requirement under Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002, for entertaining the Appeal.

¶13

Admittedly, 40%- of Rs.1,47,64,578/- conies to Rs.59,05,831.20 (rounded off to. Rs.59,05,831/-).

¶14

The Petitioner/Appellant is directed to deposit Rs.59,05,831/-, in two equal instalments. The 1st instalment Of Rs.29,52,915.50p shall be deposited on or before 04.06.2025 rand the '2nd instalment of

¶15

I *

¶16

	RS-.29,52,915.6/- 25.06:2025, sbailt be deposited on or before
	It is made clear that failure- to deposit of either of the . from time to^timej.till.further orders are passed. instalments;, the Appeal ;shEdl stand rejectee^ On making SUdh deposit by Petitioner/Appellant, Registrar,. DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the isaine, in a Nationalized Bank',
	List the case on;27.06.202$, for reporting compliance.
I I .	PAM CHAlW?ER§dN,ffi^HENNAi (iN-CHAR^E, DRAT, iMUMBAij

¶17

Uday Chhasiya v. Hdb Financial Services Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Chhasiya v. Hdb Financial Services 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

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Francis Harold Rosario versus Nkgsb Cooperative Bank Limited

Shilpi Bhatia versus Axis Bank

Shivkumar Shankarrao Deshpande versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

Vishal Laxmanrao Dandge versus Union Bank of India

Chem Impex Usha Private Limited and Others versus Sammaan Capital Limited and Anr.

Amol Kashinath Gawade versus Union Bank of India