I.A. No. 73 of 2015 in A.I.R. (S.A.) No. 105 of 2015. Case: Sabari Supermarkets Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs IDBI Bank. Chennai DRAT DRAT Cases

Case NumberI.A. No. 73 of 2015 in A.I.R. (S.A.) No. 105 of 2015
Party NameSabari Supermarkets Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs IDBI Bank
CounselFor Appellant: G. Vijayakumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Shivakumar and Suresh, Advocates
JudgesA. Arumughaswamy, J. (Chairperson)
IssueSecuritisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4), 17(1), 18(1)
CitationIII (2015) BC 148
Judgement DateFebruary 27, 2015
CourtChennai DRAT DRAT Cases

Judgment:

A. Arumughaswamy, J. (Chairperson)

  1. This Application is filed under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act by the petitioners to waive the pre-deposit.

    The main Appeal has been filed by the petitioners challenging the Order passed by the DRT-III, Chennai, dated 30th January, 2015 in SA No. 500/2014.

    A perusal of the records shows that, the petitioners have borrowed amounts from the respondent-Bank and could not repay the same. Therefore, the Authorised Officer of the respondent-Bank initiated the proceedings under the SARFAESI to recover the amount due to the petitioners by issuing Notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. The amount mentioned in the Notices is Rs. 15,79,924.63. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Application before DRT-III, Chennai challenging the Possession Notice issued by the respondent under Section 13(4) of the Act dated 21st November, 2014, under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act raising various grounds.

  2. On going through the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, it is seen that, on mentioning made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the case was taken up by the learned Presiding Officer, and after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Possession Notice dated 21st November, 2014 was granted on condition to deposit 10% of the amount mentioned in the Possession Notice, on or before 29th January, 2015 by the petitioners mid posted the case on 30th January, 2015 for compliance. On 30th January, 2015, as per the direction given by the learned Presiding Officer, the petitioners have complied with the conditional Order in letter and spirit. Subsequently, on the same day i.e., 30th January, 2015, the learned Presiding Officer, suo motu passed another order directing the petitioners to deposit another 5% of the amount mentioned in the Possession Notice, for extending the interim stay granted by it, and against which the present Appeal has been filed by the petitioners.

  3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the DRT has no right to pass such orders. Further, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that he is ready for arguments in the main SA. Therefore, the impugned Order passed by the learned Presiding Officer has to be set aside.

  4. The learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously opposed the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners by the filing...

To continue reading

Request your trial