M. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner (one of the borrowers) has challenged the conditional interim order of stay passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in I.A. No. 1071 of 2007 in (SARFAESI) No. 663 of 2007, which reads as follows:

(2.) IT appears that the respondents-Dena Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') issued notice on 13.8.2002 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act'), on the borrower(s), demanding a sum of Rs. 13,06,38,445/-. Having failed to deposit the total amount, the Bank took steps under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act; the petitioner challenged the same in SARFAESI Appeal No. 117 of 2007 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, but having not been granted with an order of interim stay, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in IN (SARFAESI) No.663 of 2007, wherein, the DRAT passed the aforesaid conditional order of interim stay on 27.11.2007.

(3.) IT was contended by the petitioner that for the very same claim, a sum of Rs. 9 crores having been already deposited by his sons against the total claim of Rs. 13,06,38,445/- in analogous appeal, no further amount could be directed to be deposited by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the DRAT cannot ask to deposit 50% of the amount twice.