Hitesh Bansal vs ICICI Bank

Ranjit Singh, J

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal below dismissing the SA filed by the appellant. To maintain this appeal, the appellant has filed an application seeking waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit.

The Counsel for the appellant submits that the notice amount was Rs. 27 lacs approximately. As per the Counsel, the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lacs before the Tribunal below and has now made another deposit of Rs. 10 lacs with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

It can thus be seen that appellant has deposited almost 50% of the principal of notice amount. Thus the appellant has complied with the requirement of pre-deposit in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. There is thus sufficient compliance of the provisions requiring pre-deposit. The waiver application (IA No. 146 of 2015) is accordingly allowed.

The appeal having been numbered as Appeal No. 138 of 2015 is taken up for final disposal with concurrence of the parties as Mr. Bhalla, Counsel for the Bank, does not want to file any reply.

The SA filed by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that he has not made any payment since filing of the SA on 27th April, 2012. It is observed that the dues claimed by the Bank remain unpaid for the period of over 2 years. After noticing this to be the conduct of the appellant, the SA was dismissed only on this conduct of the appellant, without going into the other pleas raised by the appellant in the SA.

The appellant has not placed the copy of the SA on record. Therefore, it is not possible to take note of the grounds which were raised by the appellant in the SA. The Counsel for the appellant, however, has read some part of the SA showing the prayer made in their pleading that the rate of interest charged by the Bank was excessive and the rate of interest charged was more than the agreed rate between the parties.

If that was the plea raised in the SA, the Tribunal below ought to have considered and adjudicated the same and was not justified in simply dismissing the SA by taking note of the conduct of the appellant. The Tribunal below was required to adjudicate the plea raised in the SA. Even if this was the limited plea challenging the rate of interest being excessive the Tribunal below while deciding the SA was called upon to decide the same. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained and is set aside.

The case is remitted back to the Tribunal below for deciding the SA afresh on the basis of the pleas already raised therein. The parties shall not be allowed to make any additional pleading and the SA will be decided on the pleading already made by the parties in the SA. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

The parties through their Counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal below on 27th May, 2015.