Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
ALEIXO ARNOLFO PEREIRA vs THE GOA STATE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD on 10 November 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-MUMBAI (SITTING AT -CHENNAI)
I.A. No. 578/2026(WoD) In Regular Appeal Dy. No. 1637/2026
Dated: 10.11.2026
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Petitioners/Applicants for seeking urgent relief.
2. This Appeal is filed against the final order passed in the Securitisation Application No. 41/2020 on 10.08.2026 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I Mumbai. The prayer in the S.A. shows that the S.A. has been filed to quash and set aside notices dated 30.01.2018, 23.02.2018 & 23.02.2018 under Section 13 (2) and action under Section 13 (4) initiated by the Respondent under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and for other reliefs.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants submitted that 13(2)Notice dated 30.01.2018 has been issued claiming a sum of ₹6,15,59,363/- (₹3,93,89,961+₹2,21,69,402/-) due as on 29.01.2018 in respect of two loans. The other two 13 (2) notices dated 23.02.2018 was issued claiming a sum of ₹1,53,70,786/- dues as on 22.02.2018 and ₹55,78,568/- due as on 23.02.2018 respectively. The Possession Notice dated 10.08.2018 was issued claiming a sum of ₹8,79,18,470/- as on 09.08.2018.
4. It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants that the notices issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act were defective for the reason that there is no breakup details are given with regard to the principal, the rate of interest and the interest due. It is claimed by the Bank that the 2<sup>nd</sup> Appellant, the wife of the 1<sup>st</sup> Appellant, is also Borrower/Co-applicant. However, no independent notice was issued to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Appellant but only a copy of the notice was marked to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Appellant. An English Mortgage was created for a loan of ₹50 lakhs on 20.06.2014. Subsequently, this mortgage was extended to two additional loans secured on 05.07.2014 and one more additional loan secured on 06.07.2014. The extension of mortgage was not registered, and therefore, the mortgage in respect of subsequent loans is not legal. After the introduction of the mandatory registration of the secured assets under Section 26 (D) of the SARFAESI Act, with effect from 24.01.2020 the bank has not immediately registered the secured assets with the Central Registry. Without registration, bank obtained the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act on 22.09.2020. The registration was done only on 28.05.2022. Without registration of the secured assets under Central Registry as required under Section 26 (D) of the SARFAESI Act, the order obtained under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act has no legal basis, and on that basis, the physical possession cannot be taken.
5. It is further submitted that in Section 14 application filed, the 2<sup>nd</sup> Appellant name was not shown as Respondent, but only 1<sup>st</sup> Appellant name was shown. The Petitioners/Appellants filed I.A. No. 568/2021 for amending the Securitisation Application to raise the additional grounds to include the grounds challenged in the Section 14 order and then to incorporate the prayer. However, the Learned Presiding Officer though permitted the prayer 1 (c), did not permit the Petitioners/Appellants to make appropriate amendment in the Securitisation Application. It is illegal. All these grounds were raised in the S.A. before the DRT. The Ld. Presiding Officer negated the contentions raised and allowed that the violation, if any, will not affect the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act and dismissed the Securitisation Application. Therefore, the Appeal is filed along with waiver application. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants seeks to impose the minimum pre-deposit of 25%.
6. In response to this submission, the Learned Counsel for the (MNR) 2
Respondent submitted that the necessary breakup details were given in 13 (2) notice with regard to the principal and interest. On the issue with regard to the breakup details and principal and interest rate, no ground is raised in Section 13 (3A) objection sent to the 13 (2) Demand Notice. The wife is only a Co-applicant and the sanction letter was issued only to her husband, therefore, 13(2) Demand Notice was sent to the wife with a copy marked. Once the English mortgage is created, it is not required to be registered under the law for extension of mortgage. The necessary mortgage documents were submitted by the Borrowers/Guarantors. The failure to register the secured assets to the Central Registry is only procedural and has no adverse effect, as the registration was done subsequently. Wife is only a Co-applicant and that is the reason she was not shown as the Respondent under Section 14 application. Pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining this Appeal.
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
8. As already recorded, the prayer in the S.A. is to quash and set aside the 13 (2) demand notice and 13 (4) possession notice. Later, the Application for amending the S.A. in I.A. No. 568/2021 has been filed by including the pleadings and prayer with regard to assailing the Section 14 order. The Tribunal permitted to take this ground but there no permission appears to be granted to the Petitioners/Appellants for amending the Securitisation Application. It is informed that the bank has scheduled to take physical possession of the secured asset on 17.11.20206. The issue raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants on merits of this appeal as detailed above, will be considered in the main appeal. The pre-deposit is mandatory for entertaining this appeal.
9. The debt due inclusive of interest as per Section 2(g) of RDB Act and Section 2(ha) of SARFAESI and settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in *M/s. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Prudent ARC Ltd. & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12*.
It is seen that as per the 13(2) Notice dated 30.01.2018 has been issued claiming a sum of ₹6,15,59,363/- (₹3,93,89,961+₹2,21,69,402/-) due as on 29.01.2018 in respect of two loans. Another two 13 (2) notices dated 23.02.2018 was issued claiming a sum of ₹1,53,70,786/- dues as on 22.02.2018 and ₹55,78,568/- due as on 23.02.2018 respectively. The Possession Notice dated 10.08.2018 was issued claiming a sum of ₹8,79,18,470/- as on 09.08.2018.
10. On queried, it is informed by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank that the Petitioners/Appellants made a sum of ₹75 lakhs in the year of 2023 as per the orders of the Tribunal and he also informed that current outstanding after considering all the payment made by the Petitioners/Appellants, is ₹16,00,51,960/-. Taking all these facts into account, primarily the grounds of not serving 13 (2) notice independently to the 2<sup>nd</sup> Appellant, alleged absence of breakup details with regard to the principal and interest, non-registration of the secured asset with the Central Registry on the date of obtaining the order of under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and not permitting the Petitioners/Appellants to amend the Securitisation Application, this Tribunal is of the view that directing the Petitioners/Appellants to make the pre-deposit 25% of ₹16, 00,51,916/- as pre-deposit would meet the requirement under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to entertain this Appeal.
11. Admittedly, 25% of ₹16, 00,51,916/- comes ₹4,00,12,979/-.
12. Therefore, Petitioners/Appellants shall deposit ₹4,00,12,979/- on or before 16.11.2026 by 12 noon.
13. After depositing the aforesaid amount on or before 16.11.2026 by 12 noon as directed, the Registry DRAT, Mumbai is directed number the appeal as well as stay application and place the stay application for hearing.
14. If Petitioners/Appellants fail to deposit the aforesaid amount, the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.
15. It is made clear that on failure to deposit the aforesaid amount, the Appeal will stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioners/Appellants, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed.
16. List the case on 16.11.2026 for reporting compliance and hearing on the stay application, if complied.
**CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI** **(IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI)**
MKS-02(SB)/PAM