Disposed

Sambhaji Balkrishna Sawant v. Uco Bank

DRAT10 Nov 2025IA/695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT Chennai bench rejected the victim borrower's request for a waiver of the Section 21 pre-deposit, finding their title questionable and them not a bona fide third party. The Tribunal directed payment of 25% of dues in two installments to entertain the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directive to deposit 25% of dues in two instalments (1l l.11.2025 and 2l on next hearing) to entertain the appeal and defer property auction.

Sambhaji Balkrishna Sawant versus Uco Bank — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

In I.A. No. 695/2025 (WoD)

¶3

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1383/2025

¶4

Dated: 10.11.2025

¶5

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

¶6

the Appeal. The Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit required under Section 21 of the RDB Act, for entertaining

¶7

rejected by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai 13/2020 to stay the effect, implementation and execution of DRT-II, Mumbai in Recovery Proceedings No.235/2017 and situated at Village Kandivali, M.G. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai 400067 on 19.08.2025. The said Application was Notice dated 02.08.2025 issued by the Court Commissioner order dated 29.08.2024 passed by Learned Recovery Officer, Petitioner/Appellant filed I.A. No. 1817/2025 in M.A. No. scheduling the auction of the property viz.,Flat No. 702, 7th which lead to filing of this Appeal. Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that Floor, Shri Sai Krupa CHS Ltd, Plot No. 5, CTS No. 1095,

¶8

possession of the property on 12.11.2025, therefore, this 6thRespondent in this Appeal. The Bank is trying to take Appeal along with Waiver Application. be sold through a Registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.2007 from one Shri Dalpat Tabhajibhai Anjariya, the that Petitioner/Appellant purchased the property sought to Learned Counsel for Petitioner/Appellant further submitted

¶9

and created the alleged Sale Deed. He was criminally for the loan facility availed by him. On his failure to pay the 2008. O.A. No. 171/2008 was filed for recovery of the dues. The O.A. was allowed on 05.02.2010. Therefore, he submitted that this Appeal cannot be entertained without pre-deposit. He further submitted that Petitioner/Appellant filed M.A. No. 13/2020 challenging the order passed in O.A. No. 171/2008 and the said M.A. is still pending. In reply, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Bank society concern He forged and fabricated the documents of the property is the 2nd Respondent, i.e., Tara Sureshbabu Padduthy. He mortgaged the property in the year of 2005 loan due, the account was classified as NPA in the year prosecuted and in fact,jailed for the offence. The real owner submitted that Petitioner/Appellant is the Secretary of the

¶10

Learned Counsel for Respondent further submits that Petitioner/Appellant is not in possession of the property but a tenant is in possession of the property and rent is being received from the tenant by the petitioner/appellant..

¶11

Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant submits this Appeal is filed by 3rdparty who is the neither a borrower nor a guarantor and thus, he seeks waiver of pre-deposit.

¶13

From the submissions recorded above, it is clear that original owner of the property is the 2ndRespondent, Tara Sureshbabu Padduthy and no Sale Deed executed by the 2nd Respondent in favour of 6th Respondent had been produced. Therefore, Sale Deed produced and relied by the Petitioner/Appellant dated 30.09.2007 is questionable on

¶14

the Petitioner/Appellant cannot be considered as a bona fide 3rdparty purchaser entitled for waiver of pre-deposit. its validity and enforceability. In the said circumstances,

¶15

Therefore, this Tribunal directs the monthly rest from the date of filing the O.A. till the date of amount. realization. Recovery Certificate was also issued for this the Original Application with interest @ 10% p.a. with As per the order passed in O.A. No.171/2008, O.A. was allowed for a sum of 14,45,377/- as against D-1 to D-4 in the requirements of Section 21 of the RDB Act for 14,45,377/- with interest at 10% p.a. with monthly rests Petitioner/Appellant to make the pre-deposit of 25% of from date of order till date in two equal instalments to meet entertaining this Appeal.

¶16

before 09.12.2025. Accordingly, 1st instalment shall be paid on or before 11.11.2025 and the 2nd Instalment shall be paid on or

¶17

next hearing date. possession schedule on 12.11.2025 is to be deferred till the If 1stinstalment is deposited on or before 11.11.2025, the

¶18

accordance with law. Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in If Petitioner/Appellant fails to deposit of 1st Instalment, the

¶19

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

¶20

List the case on 11.12.2025 for reporting compliance.

¶21

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

¶22

MKS-02

Sambhaji Balkrishna Sawant v. Uco Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambhaji Balkrishna Sawant v. Uco 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

Similar cases

Mrs Parita Shirishbhai Shah versus the Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited

Yogesh Ratilal Pandya and Ors. versus LIC Housing Finance Authorized officer

Shri Vilas Eknath Nandgude versus Sammaan Capital Limited Formerly Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Ashok Amrutbhai Patel versus Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Mohan S/o Shashikant Bhosale versus Indian Bank and Ors.

Jitendrakumar Mavjibhai Padhiyar versus Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Limited