Partly allowed

Pothuguntla Vishnu Praveen Kumar v. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

DRAT3 Apr 2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRAT Mumbai appointed in-charge chairperson dealt with an appeal seeking waiver of pre-deposit under S. 18 SARFAESI Act. Despite the lower court having directed a deposit earlier, the Tribunal directed appellation to deposit 40% of the summons notice amount in two installments to meet statutory requirements for hearing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed deposit of Rs.44,27,622/- in two equal instalments; first installment due by 11:00 AM on 7.4.2025; second within three weeks; failure to pay first installment entitles bank to possession and

Pothuguntla Vishnu Praveen Kumar versus The Catholic Syrian… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

I i k I 1 r

¶2

¶3

debt.recovery'Appellate tribunal ^ mumbai

¶4

IA Dv;Noi21b/2b25 (WOP) In MiscGllaneous:AppearDv;No.l986/2024 .

¶5

Dafed-i3.4.2d2S

¶6

id. Gd.uhsel for both sidSsWe present in VC.

¶7

This: application .is. filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit under Section i8 of thd-SAREAESI Act,for:entertairiing.the appeal.

¶8

Ld. Cbuhsel for petitioners/appellants submltted thatpetltioners filed SA NO31672024 on the file of DRT-III, Mumbai challenging1 : the; order of the Ld: GMM, Esplanade Mumbai passed under' Sectiqh;14.of SAREAESI Act. Ld. Counsel further.submitted that when the1 said SA Mas pending, pefitlbners filed. .IA No;2432/2024 seeking stay.: It ^is further submitted that petitioners submitted before, the Ld. Presiding ^Officer, DRf^lil, Mumbai that they .already'rnade .OTS letterl.dr;,Rs:2:21 crores and that offer was -rejected, by. the respondent bank.-.-It was further, submitted before Ld. Presiding Officer, jtKjat petitioners wanted tojsettle-the.matter in one shot and theioutstahdlng due ast ph-the date 6f:passing of the,order- t.e.,20.8.2024 Is, 85.2:81 crores. .Ld^Counsel prayed fop protection of dispossession of-,the property.

¶9

In such •circumstances,: Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Murtib’ai directed the petitipners'^d deposit RsJS.OO lakhs by 12.00 noon on 21.8.2024. and Rs.10.00 lakhs by one week from. 20;8i-2024/ ■fajling to comply with The condition,, petitioners ;should hand over physical.possession of the property to the responderit bank arid matter Was adjourned to 22.10.2024 for filing reply to5A. it isTurther submitted that withM filing reply to SA, .respondent.

ImWl

..xontd./-

I iI

i I I I i i ! I I

I I

bank has taken steps for taking possession of the property and the possession is scheduled on 7.4.2025. Thus petitioners have filed this appeal against the adjudication order dated 20.8.2024 along with waiver application.

¶21

Ld. Counsel for respondent bank opposed this waiver application on the ground that order dated 20.8.024 was passed on the consent of the petitioners. In fact petitioners have themselves offered to pay Rs.25.00 lakhs in two instalments. Therefore, now they cannot file an appeal against the said consent order. It is further submitted that as per demand notice dated 6.9.2022, amount demanded is Rs. 1,10,69,055.19p .

¶22

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶23

It is seen that even as aqtfgjtffcd by the petitioners before Ld. presiding officer oh 20.8.2024, the outstanding due was Rs.2.81 crores as on 20.8.2024.

¶24

In the said circumstances, this Tribunal directs the petitioners to deposit 40% of the 13(2) notice i.e. Rs.1,10,69,055.19p towards pre-deposit to meet the requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining the appeal.

¶25

Accordingly, petitioners are directed to deposit 40% of Rs.1,10,69,055.19p which comes to Rs.44,27,622.08p rounded off to Rs.44,27,622/- in two equal instalments, of which, first instalment of Rs.22,13,811/- shall be paid on or before 11.00 AM on 7.4.2025 and the second instalment of Rs.22,13,811/- within three weeks thereafter.

¶26

Failure to make the first instalment on or before 11.00 AM on

¶27

7.4.2025 would entitle the respondent bank to proceed further . . with taking physical possession .and • appeal would stand rejected.

....Contd./-

I i i I I

In case pre-deposit is made within the stipulated period as mentioned above , Registry is directed to number the Appeal if it is otherwise in order and Registrar shall invest the same In a Nationalized Bank for a reasonable period and renew it periodically, till further orders are passed.

¶32

Post the matter on 30.4.2025 for further proceedings.

¶33

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

¶34

Pothuguntla Vishnu Praveen Kumar v. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pothuguntla Vishnu Praveen Kumar v. The Catholic Syrian Bank 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prime Downtown Estates Pvt. Ltd. versus Yes Bank

Stemkor International Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

Mrs Madhuri Madhukar Tijare versus India Shelter Finance Corporation Ltd.

Shivkumar Shankarrao Deshpande versus Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank)

N Kumar Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Nandkumar Harchandani versus Central Bank of India

Jagdishbhai Ghanshyambhai Shah versus The Authorized Officer the Bhagyodaya Co-Op Bank Limited