9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he view taken by the DRAT that there could be no waiver of pre-deposit in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act appears to be incorrect in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Manju Devi and Ors. v M/s. R. B. L. Bank Ltd. and Ors. [ 2017 (4) TMI 476 - DELHI HIGH COURT ]. This Court in the said decision noted that the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act obligates the borrower to deposit with the DRAT 50% of the amount of debt due from him for the appeal, which may be filed either by the borrower or other party, to be entertained. The Court noted that if the said proviso had to be read literally to mean that such appeal would not be entertained, if neither the borrower nor the third person made the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is directed against an order dated 15th January, 2019, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal ( DRAT ), rejecting the Petitioner s application being I.A. No. 450/2018, seeking waiver of the pre-deposit in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act ). 3. The background facts are that the Respondent demanded from the present Petitioner a sum of Rs. 84,17,558/- by way of a demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The DRAT has rejected the application on the ground that Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act makes no distinction between an appeal filed against an interim order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 9 of the Act was filed by the Respondent against the present Petitioner for coercive action against the property in question. In the said petition, the Petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 9808/2015 for directions to the Respondent to produce the original loan agreement, together with supporting documents and asked that the specimen signatures of the present Petitioner be sent to the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory ( CFSL ) to seek a report as regards the genuineness of the signatures on the said loan agreement. He also prayed that the already pending O.M.P. No. 16/2015 be kept in abeyance. 9. This application was considered by the learned Single Judge of this Court and a detailed order was passed on 27th July, 2016, directing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter was listed on 30th November, 2017. 11. On that date, the DRT was informed that the Petitioner had filed his rejoinder. However, it noted that the right of the Petitioner to file evidence already stands closed as per the order of the Hon ble PO , whereas the DRT itself had granted time on 25th October, 2017 to the Petitioner to file evidence. 12.The Petitioner had then to file an application for condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder and evidence and that was taken up for consideration by the DRT on 8th February, 2018. In an order passed on that date, the DRT declined to condone the delay by holding that the opportunity of filing rejoinder and evidence had already been closed by the order dated 1 st September, 2017. It is agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer as a condition for entertaining the appeal. 14. In view of the legal position explained in Manju Devi (supra) this Court holds that the DRAT was in error in the present case in declining to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner for waiver of pre-deposit. It is the Petitioner s case that he is neither the principal borrower nor mortgager of the property in question and that issue has to await the consideration of the SA filed by him on the strength of the CFSL final report which is yet awaited. It may be noticed here that it is only an interim report of the CFSL that has been submitted before the DRT. 15. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, this Court is of the view that the delay in the Petitioner filing the affidavit of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e available with the Registry should be forthwith transmitted to the DRT-I before whom SA No. 286/2016 is pending after ensuring that certified copies thereof are supplied to the Respondent and filed in this Court by the Respondents in terms of the impugned order dated 3rd May, 2017 of this Court. 20. The SA 286 of 2016 will now continue before the DRT on the date already fixed. A direction is issued to the CFSL to expedite the final report and send it directly to the DRT-I not later than 30th November, 2019. Any observation made in this order will not affect the final outcome of the SA No. 286/2016 pending before the DRT which will be decided independently by the DRT on merits. 21. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
