ORAL ORDER

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking extension of the stay granted by the learned Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench vide order dated 24.11.2023 and also being aggrieved by the vacation of the stay by the learned DRAT vide order dated 19.02.2024 in Interim Application No.2132 of 2023 in Miscellaneous Appeal (Diary)

No.2130 of 2023.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the appeal before the DRAT, Mumbai, time to deposit the amount was granted by the DRAT, Mumbai vide order dated

15.01.2024, however, the petitioners could not manage to pay the requisite amount and again on 05.02.2024, the petitioners were granted further time by the DRAT, Mumbai to deposit the remaining amount on or before 19.02.2024. Thus, on three occasions, the petitioners were granted time by the DRAT, Mumbai to deposit the amount. However, the petitioners could not manage to pay the amount and therefore, the DRAT, Mumbai vide order dated 19.02.2024 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of present petition.

3. It is pertinent to note herein that, this Court while issuing notice, had directed the petitioners to comply with the directions issued by the DRAT and deposit the amount as specified by the DRAT i.e. 25% of the total outstanding dues which comes to Rs.3.5 Crores. Thereafter, on 11.03.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioners have complied with the order dated 23.02.2024 passed by this Court and deposited the amount as required by the DRAT and therefore, requested to restore the matter before the DRAT.

4. Today, learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji, appearing for the respondent Bank has submitted that twice this Court has shown indulgence in the matter and every time the petitioner had not complied with the undertaking and not deposited the amount in time. Even the OTS request was also not fulfilled and the petitioners had back out from the OTS which was considered by the respondent Bank and therefore, this Court may not show any indulgence in the present petition.

5. I have heard the learned senior advocate Mr.S.N. Soparkar assisted by learned advocate Mr.Kuldeep Adesara, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji, appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank. Considering the fact that under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the Court can entertain the appeal on deposit of either 50% of the total outstanding and the requisite fees and/or in case the Court deem it fit. Therefore, in the present case, the Court has granted indulgence by directing the petitioners to deposit 25% of the total outstanding, however, the petitioners did not deposit the said amount within the stipulated time which was extended by the DRAT twice and therefore, the impugned order came to be passed by the DRAT. However, considering the fact that thereafter, at the time of issuing notice, this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit the requisite amount as directed by the DRAT and the same was deposited by the petitioners and the impugned order was complied with by the petitioners.

6. In view of above, let the interim application be restored to its original file and the main appeal be heard on merits and the same shall be decided by the DRAT in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 7. With the above observation and direction, the present petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the DRAT is hereby quashed and set aside and the interim application is ordered to be restored to its original file.

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

Direct service is permitted. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

Dolly