AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The appellant creditor is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.2024 in I.A. No. 1902/2024 in Securitisation Application (S.A.)No. 321/2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Mumbai (DRT) granting protection to the applicants in the S.A. against the taking over of possession of the secured asset by the appellant under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”, for short) for recovery of debt allegedly due from them. It is seen from the impugned order that DRT has directed the parties to come to a settlement and also directed payment of certain amounts.
On condition of payment of those amounts, the protection was granted.
From the arguments advanced it is not seen that the appellant has serious contentions in the S.A. concerning the limitation and maintainability. Any interlocutory prayer for protection or injunction in an S.A. has to be disposed of on its merits. It would not be appropriate to dispose of such interlocutory applications without going into the merits, at least prima facie. On perusal of the impugned order, I see that the DRT has not delved into the merits of the case at all and the contentions raised by the appellant appear to be challenging the very sustainability of the S.A. on the grounds of limitation and maintainability. Hence, at least a prima facie finding concerning the maintainability of the S.A. on the ground of limitation should have been considered by the DRT while granting protection to the respondent herein.
However, the protection from Sarfaesi measures is already granted on making a payment of ₹ 1 crore. It is also observed in the order that the applicant in the S.A. had earlier made a payment of ₹ 1.26 crores. Further, ₹ 2.10 crores have also been realized by the sale of some properties. Probably keeping in view all these payments made, the DRT had swayed in favour of the applicant to grant protection. There is a serious dispute regarding the exact amount that is due and payable. There is already an Original Application (O.A.) that is pending before DRT, Pune and the parties shall see to it that representations are made before the DRT, Pune and the O.A. itself disposed of expeditiously.
In the meanwhile, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to the DRT to dispose of I.A. No. 1902/2024 on its merits as expeditiously as possible at any rate within one month, and if possible, the S.A. shall also be considered together for disposal. The replies shall be filed expeditiously at any rate within two weeks. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant undertakes to file the reply within two days and a rejoinder, if any, shall also be filed within a week or two. The interim protection shall continue for two months or till disposal of I.A. 1902/2024, whichever is earlier.
With these observations, the appeal is disposed of without entering into the merits, and keeping open all rival contentions to be considered by the DRT.