Dismissed¶9

Visharam Tenneries Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Finance

Bombay HC25 Mar 2026WP/16276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Visharam Tenneries Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Finance, WP 16276/2025, Bombay HC (Pitale & Shirsat JJ., 01-04-2026): proviso to Section 21 RDB Act 1993 pre-deposit floor 25%; DRAT Mumbai reduced mandatory pre-deposit 50% to 25%; self-operating order — appeal rejected for non-deposit; writ dismissed; time extended till 30-04-2026 to deposit; revival of DRAT appeal upon compliance; no further extension; no merits observations.

What did the court decide?

Extension of time till 30 April 2026 to make the pre-deposit in terms of the impugned order (granted as a matter of discretion/indulgence, no further extension); upon compliance on or before 30 April 2026, the Appeal shall stand revived before the DRAT for consideration on merits. ¶9

Visharam Tenneries Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ court should interfere with the DRAT order directing the Petitioner to make pre-deposit of 25% of the determined amount under the proviso to Section 21 of the RDB Act. +1 more

¶5

Court's answer

Having considered the impugned order and the Petitioner's submissions, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the impugned DRAT order.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The proviso to Section 21 of the RDB Act mandates that the pre-deposit shall not be less than 25% of the amount of the debt due.

¶5

Key takeaways

No fault can be attributed to the DRAT in passing the impugned order; the Petitioner had not even disputed that the amount is due and payable to Respondent No.2 – Bank.ratio¶5
No merit was found in the present Writ Petition.ratio¶6
The impugned order being self-operating, the Petitioner's failure to make the pre-deposit resulted in rejection of the Appeal itself before the DRAT.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition dismissed — Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.; 1 April 2026) declines to interfere with the DRAT, Mumbai order dated 31 October 2025 fixing pre-deposit at 25% of the amount determined in two installments, holding that the proviso to Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 mandates a pre-deposit of not less than 25% of the debt due (having been reduced by the DRAT from the statutory 50%), so no fault is attributable to the DRAT; the Petitioner had not disputed the amount due to Respondent No.2 – Bank. The impugned order being self-operating, the Appeal had already been rejected on the Petitioner's failure to deposit. As a matter of indulgence, time is extended till 30 April 2026 to make the pre-deposit; on compliance, the Appeal stands revived before the DRAT for consideration on merits; no further extension shall be granted; no observations made on merits.

¶1

4-WP-16276-2025.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PURTI PRASAD PARAB

¶4

Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2026.04.02 15:01:55 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 16276 OF 2025

¶6

Visharam Tenneries Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

…Petitioner

¶8

Versus Union of India Ministry of Finance and Anr. …Respondents

¶9

Mr. Madhur Rai a/w Ms. Sneha Nandgaonkar i/b Ms. Jyoti Ghorpade for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM: MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE: 1^st APRIL 2026

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶14

By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged order dated 31^st October 2015 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ( “the DRAT” ). By the said order the DRAT directed the Petitioner to make pre-deposit to the extent of 25% of the amount determined and the Petitioner was granted facility of two installments to make such deposit. The first installment was to be paid by 14^th November 2025 and the second installment was to be paid by 28^th November 2025.

¶15

The Petitioner filed this Writ Petition on 18^th November 2025 and it has been circulated today.

¶16

We find that the DRAT in the impugned order has considered the

Page 1 of 3

Purti Parab

4-WP-16276-2025.DOC

contentions of the Petitioner and referred to the statutory mandate under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 ( “the RDB Act” ). After referring to the said statutory mandate, the DRAT reduced the mandatory pre-deposit from 50% to 25% as per the proviso to Section 21 of the RDB Act.

¶21

Having considered the impugned order and the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the proviso to Section 21 of the RDB Act makes it clear that the pre-deposit shall not be less than 25% of the amount of the debt due. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the DRAT in passing the impugned order. The Petitioner has not even disputed that amount is due and payable to the Respondent No.2 – Bank.

¶22

We do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. We also find that the impugned order being a self operating order, due to failure on the part of the Petitioner to make pre-deposit as per the directions contained in the impugned order, the Appeal itself has been rejected.

¶23

At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a fervent plea that this Court may consider granting extension of time to make the pre-deposit and that if such pre-deposit in terms of the impugned order is made within the extended period of time, this Court may consider directing that the Appeal filed before the DRAT would be revived.

¶24

Although, the Respondents are not before this Court, as a matter of indulgence and in the light of the willingness shown by the Petitioner to

Page 2 of 3

Purti Parab

4-WP-16276-2025.DOC

make the pre-deposit in terms of the impugned order, we are inclined to issue appropriate directions in this Writ Petition.

¶29

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the Petitioner is granted time till 30^th April 2026 to make the pre-deposit in terms of the impugned order dated 31^st October 2025. The aforesaid extension of time is granted only as a matter of discretion exercised by this writ Court in the light of the willingness shown by the Petitioner to make such pre-deposit in the extended period of time. It is made clear that no further extension shall be granted.

¶30

In the event, the Petitioner complies with the direction contained in the impugned order on or before 30^th April 2026, the Appeal shall stand revived before the DRAT for consideration on merits.

¶31

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the matter.

¶32

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶33

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶34

Page 3 of 3

¶35

Purti Parab

Visharam Tenneries Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visharam Tenneries Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India Ministry of Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shaikh Muhammad Mustaqeem Mstan vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretay

M/S. Kapole Advertising Agency Thru. Prop. and Ors. vs Standard Chartered Bank and Ors.

Konshila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs Pegasus Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd.

Bharat Cooperative Bank (Mumbai) Limited vs State of Maharashtra, through Assistant Govt. Pleader

Indian Bank vs City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharshtra Limited (Cidco))

Tahira Shamimuddin Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.