AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed on 12.02.2024 by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.
The Appellants are in appeal impugning the order dated 19.12.2023 in Interlocutory Application (I.A.) No. 2400 of 2023 in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 251 of 2022 on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Nagpur (D.R.T.) wherein the Ld. Presiding Officer refused to grant any protection to the Appellants as regards Sarfaesi measures initiated by the Respondent. It is recorded that the Appellants have undertaken to pay certain amounts before a specific date but they could not pay the amount and sought an extension which was refused. Therefore, the Appellants are facing the threat of dispossession of the property which is scheduled to take place tomorrow. The Appellants have raised various contentions in the S.A. stating that the demand notice issued under Sec.13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, for short) is not valid because he does not give a bifurcation of the interest, principal amount and also the costs and therefore, it is bad in law for having infringed the mandatory provision under Sec. 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. As per the demand notice issued under Sec. 13(2), the demand is for a sum of ₹91,31,033/-. After the receipt of the demand notice, the Appellants have in instalments paid a total sum of ₹45,50,000/-. The Appellants contend that they have a prima facie case and therefore, indulgence may be shown to reduce the mandatory pre-deposit contemplated under Sec. 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act to the minimum of 25% of the amount due. The Appellants have not produced any documents to prove their impecuniosity. Under the circumstances, the Appellants will have to deposit 50% of the debt due. Since the Sarfaesi measure is still under Sec. 13(4). The amount mentioned in the demand notice should be the threshold amount but it is pertinent to note that the Appellants have paid a sum of ₹45.50 lakhs towards that amount but if that amount is deducted, the subsequent interest accrued will have to be added up. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent on instructions submits that as of date there is an outstanding dues of ₹68.55 lakhs. Therefore, the Appellants will have to make the pre-deposit considering the said amount as the threshold amount.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the Appellants are directed to deposit a sum of ₹30 lakhs as pre-deposit. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that he will be paying a sum of ₹8 lakhs today. The balance of ₹22 lakhs shall be paid in two equal instalments within a gap of two weeks each as mentioned hereunder.
Numbers of Instalments
Payment on or before
1st Instalment of ₹11 lakhs
28.02.2024
2nd Instalment of ₹11 lakhs
13.03.2024
Default in payment of any of the instalments entails in dismissal of the appeal without any further reference to this Tribunal.
Given the payment of ₹8 lakhs as undertaken to be paid today, the taking over of possession tomorrow i.e. 15.02.2024 shall be deferred till the next date of hearing.
The amount shall be deposited as a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.
As and when the said amounts are deposited, they shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalised bank, initially for 13 months, and after that to be renewed periodically.
With these observations, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondent is at liberty to file a reply in the Appeal with an advance copy to the other side.
Post on 29.02.2024 for reporting compliance regarding the first instalment.