Disposed

Lalit Raghunathrao Shinde v. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd.

DRAT13 Oct 2025IA/642/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellant challenged measures under the SARFAESI Act including a possession notice. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to deposit 25% of the claimed amount in two installments to entertain the appeal and deferred the scheduled possession contingent upon the deposit.

What did the court decide?

Directions to deposit 25% of the claimed amount in two installments; possession deferred until deposit is made.

Lalit Raghunathrao Shinde versus Authum Investment and… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 642/2025 (WoD)

¶3

¶4

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1657/2025

¶5

Dated: 13.10.2025

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

It is the submission of Learned Counsel for 139/2025 challenging the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act including non-registration under CERSAI by Petitioner/Appellant that Petitioner/Appellant filed S.A. No. issuance of Demand Notice u/s 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act on 27.02.2024, order passed by Learned District Magistrate, Pune in SECU/SR/2367/2024 on 05.12.2024, possession notice dated 13.01.2025, etc.

¶9

When the aforesaid S.A. is pending, Revenue Officer issued secured property on 17.09.2025. He moved for stay before a Possession Notice for taking physical possession of the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune. The Learned depositing 10% of the amount claimed in the Demand Notice by 3.00 pm on 18.09.2025 and another 10% within a Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune passed an order staying taking month from 17.09.2025. Challenging this order, this Appeal possession of the property subject to Petitioner/ Appellant is filed along with Waiver Application.

¶10

against the measures taken for physical possession It is further submitted that one I.A. No. 343/2025

¶11

petitioner/Appellant also submitted that after issuance of 10% and 5% respectively. Learned Counsel for Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, amount claimed in the Demand Notice in two instalments at passed an order on 04.02.2025 staying the possession Petitioner/Appellant made payment of ₹25.00 lakhs, as per scheduled on 05.02.2025 subject to payment of 15% of the was filed by petitioner/appellant. Learned Presiding Officer the orders of the DRT. especially pending disposal of the Securitization Application

¶12

notice was not challenged in main Securitisation protection from the Possession Notice issued by the possession of the property on 14.10.2025. However, this Institution submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant seeks Application. Therefore, without challenge in the S.A., the stay of operation of this Possession Notice cannot be In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Executive Magistrate, Pimpri Chinchwad from taking amount due is₹1.05 crores. ordered. It is further submission that as on today the

¶13

It is seen from the submissions of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties that as per the order passed by possession of the property. The validity of this order will be pending, Possession Notices are repeatedly issued for taking 04.02.2025, Petitioner/Appellant paid 15% of the amount demanded in the Demand Notice in two instalments. It is Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. under Section 14 order is still pending, When that is so far. The main S.A. filed for challenging the order passed claimed that 25.00 Lakhs has been paid by the petitioner

¶14

*26,25,000.00. this Appeal Admittedly, 25% of ₹1,05,00,000/- comes to of under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining that pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining this Appeal, pre-deposit of 25% of ₹1.05 crores to meet the requirement this Tribunal directs the Petitioner/Appellant to make a decided in the main Appeal. However, considering the fact

¶15

Therefore, Petitioner/Appellant shall deposit deposited thereafter i.e.on or before 11.11.2025. 14.10.2025 and 2nd instalment of ₹13,12,500/- shall be 13,12,500/-shall be deposited on or before 11.00 AM on *26,25,000/- in two instalments, 1st instalment of

¶16

next hearing date. possession scheduled on 14.10.2025 shall be deferred till *13,12,500/- on or before 11.00 AM on 14.10.2025 the If Petitioner/Appellant deposits the first instalment of

¶17

If Petitioner/Appellant fails to deposit the first proceed further in accordance with law. instalment of ₹13,12,500/- on or before 14.10.2025 by 11.00 AM, the Respondent Institution is at liberty to

¶18

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

¶19

List the case on 13.11.2025 for reporting compliance.

¶20

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

¶21

MKS-02

Lalit Raghunathrao Shinde v. Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Raghunathrao Shinde v. Authum Investment and Infrastructure 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

Shree Shubhshanti Steels Pvt. Ltd. versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Jagdishkumar Naranbhai Patel and Ors. versus Bank of India

Jagdishkumar Naranbhai Patel and Ors. versus Bank of India

Royal Traders versus Assets Reconstruction Company India Limited

Aarti Gunjikar versus Idbi Bank Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Mr v Subburaj and 4 Ors. versus Icici Bank Limited