Disposed

Shri Rupesh Ashok Pure v. Canara Bank

DRAT10 Nov 2025IA/696/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal addressed an appeal seeking waiver of the statutory pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act. The Bank argued the appeal was infructuous as the property was sold. The Tribunal held the appeal admissible but required payment of the deposit instead of a waiver, directing the appellants to deposit the sum in two instalments.

What did the court decide?

Directors Petitioners/Appellants to deposit ₹42.00 lakhs in two equal instalments by specified dates to enable the appeal to proceed.

Shri Rupesh Ashok Pure versus Canara Bank — Execution and Attachment | DRAT (2025)

¶1

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

¶2

I.A. No. 696/2025(WoD) In

¶3

Misc. Appeal Dy. No. 1780/2025

¶4

Dated: 10.11.2025

¶5

entertaining the Appeal. required under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioners/Appellants seeking urgent relief. The Application is filed seeking waiver of statutory deposit

¶6

No.185/2025 challenging the measures taken under It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for application on 04.11.2025. Thus, this Appeal is filed. It is property. Pending S.A., Petitioners/Appellant filed I.A. No. 1587/2025 with a prayer to redeem the property on the order of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and sale of the payment of loan due and not to take any coercive steps. The Petitioners/Appellants that Petitioners/Appellant filed S.A. Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Nagpur rejected the said In the said circumstances, they seek waiver of pre-deposit. his further submission that possession is scheduled today. SARFAESI Act, 2002 especially the Symbolic Possession,

¶7

this Appeal has become infructous for the reason that the for the reason that right to redeem the property is lost once opposes complete waiver of pre-deposit. He submits that Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Bank strongly seeking redemption of the property cannot be entertained also issued. The prayer asked in I.A. No. 1587/2025 property was sold on 28.10.2025 and Sale Certificate was

¶8

dismissed the I.A. No. 1587/2025. the sale notice published. Thus, the Tribunal had rightly

¶9

When queried, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Bank submitted that taking of possession process is still on.

¶10

possession. submits that no one has visited the property for taking In reply, Learned Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants

¶11

Appeal like right to redemption available to the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties on merits of the *94,49,459.05p. The amount due to be recovered at the 1.40 crores. With regard to the submissions made by for the parties that as per the Demand Notice dated 03.05.2025 the amount demanded as due was Petitioners/Appellant, etc. will be considered in the main time of sale was ₹1.07 crores. The property was sold for deposit of 30% of ₹1.40 crores to meet the requirement Appeal. Now that property is sold, third-party interest is this Tribunal directs the Petitioners/Appellants to make prunder Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to entertain Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. It is seen from the submissions made by Counsel appearing created and sale is also challenged by way of amendment, this Appeal.

¶12

Admittedly, 30% of ₹1.40 crores comes to ₹42.00 lakhs.

¶13

before 08.12.2025. in two equal instalments, of which 1st instalment of ₹21.00 lakhs is to be deposited today i.e. 10.11.2025 by 4.00 pm and the 2nd instalment of ₹21.00 shall be deposited on or Therefore, Petitioner/Appellants shall deposit ₹42.00 lakhs

¶14

4.00 pm by today i.e. 10.11.2025. the possession scheduled today to be deferred till next hearing. On deposit of 1st Instalment of ₹21.00 lakhs on or before

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

List the case on 10.12.2025 for reporting compliance.

¶18

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

¶19

MKS-01

Shri Rupesh Ashok Pure v. Canara Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rupesh Ashok Pure v. Canara 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

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