Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2022) 09 DRAT CK 0051

Shivaji Jaisingh Jadhav vs Karad Urban Co operative Bank Ltd. & 7 Ors

Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal · Decided on 21 September 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 455 Of 2022 (CoD) In Appeal on Diary No. 832 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 424 words

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent No.1. Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.06.2022 of the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Pune, in I.A. No. 961/2022 in S.A. No. 21/2022, wherein the Appellant had sought relief to restrain the Respondent No.1 bank from conducting an auction of the secured assets on 20.06.2022.

2.

The learned Presiding Officer, for the reason stated in the impugned order, refused to grant any stay and dismissed the application. The Appellant is impugning that order in this Appeal. I am told by the counsel across the Bar that the sale has already taken place and is confirmed.

3.

The Appellant has raised several grounds challenging the Safaesi measures taken by the Respondent Bank right from the issuing of the notice u/s 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act to the conducting of the auction, which includes the auction notice. Those matters are yet to be considered and decided by the learned Presiding Officer.

4.

The Appeal is filed only with a prayer to set aside the impugned order which refused to stall the auction to the held on 20. 06.2022.

5.

In view of the fact that the auction has already taken place and setting aside that order will not serve any purpose since the S.A challenging the other Sarfaesi measures is still pending consideration by the D.R.T. There is no prima facie case made out by the Appellant for maintaining the Appeal. The Appellant has not pleaded any financial strain. Hence I find no reason to invoke the discretion under the third proviso to Section 18(1).

6.

In view of the 2nd proviso to section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, to entertain the Appeal, the Appellant will have the deposit 50% of the amount which is due from him. The amount due as on 25. 08.2022 is Rs.2,93,66,493/-. The Appellant is, therefore, directed to pay the deposit 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.1,46,83,246/- within a period of two weeks i.e. on or before 06.10.2022. In case of default in payment, the Appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to this Tribunal.

7.

The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft with the Registrar of this Tribunal.

8.

As and when the said amount is deposited, it shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai, with any nationalized bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter it will be renewed periodically.

9.

Post on 07.10.2022 for reporting compliance concerning the deposit.