This interim order reiterates the deposit requirement for entertaining an appeal under Section 21 of the RDDB Act, directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the debt amount in two instalments failure of which results in rejection of the appeal.
Direction to deposit Rs.14,40,26,168.50 in two instalments to entertain the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
J
• /-• DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE T.R1BUNAL. - MUMBAI /• (SITTING AT-CHENNAI) LA/ NO. 472/2022 (WOD) In ■Regular Appeal Dy No.. 732/2022
pated:25.04/2025
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a Praecipe filed by the Petitioner/Appellant for seeking urgent relief.
This Application is filed .seeking waiver of statutory deposit required, tinder Section 21 of the RDB, Act, 1-993, for entertaining the Appeal.
This Appeal is filed against the order of Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-II, Mumbai, in .Appeal No. 04/2021 date 06.09.2021, declining to entertain the appeal unless the Petitioner/Appellant deposits 50% of the. amount. The-Appeal No. 04/2021 was filed against the order passed by the Recovery Officer on 28.12.2020 wherein Recovery Officer declined to accept the request- of Petitioner/Appellant for redeeming, his property on receipt of .Rs..l)24,85j319;'52p. It was? obsei-ved by the Learned Recovery Officer that sale’ procia’mation had been issued for an amount.
i
I.
I
Rs.4,56,26,642;46p and Pctitioner/Appcllant was directed to. redeem his property on payment of said amount and said Application has been dismissed -on 23.12.2020. Against this, order, an Appeal in Appeal No. 04/2021 was filed and when, the Presiding Officer, DRT-Il, Mumbai refused to ••^entertain the Appeal unless 5.0% of the tortou'nt deposited, against which.J; this Appeal has been filed.
NOW, it is brought to the. notice of this. Tribunal <that in terms of said proclamation dated ■25111.2020, sale was concluded and the Auction . Purchaser:, who purchased, the. property, had sold out .the property to several, persons. The Petitioner/Appellant, all :alpng been prosecuting! the Sale, but made- no effort to redeem: the property, In .the said circumstances, this Tribunal finds that there is no reason to interfere -with order ,of Learned. presiding Officer, DRT-I1, Mumbai. Even, this: Appeal cannot be entertained-withoutpre-depoSit. In' the said circumstances, directing the Petitionef./Appellant to deposit 50% of the Rs.28.,80,52,337.18p .(rounded off to Rs.28,80,52,337/-) ih two instalments, would.meet
I
J I
the requirement under Section 21 of the RDB ,Act, 1993, for entertaining the Appeal.
Admittedly, 50% of .Rs.28,80,52,337./- comes'to RS. 14,40,26,168.50p.
■ Therefore, Petitioner/Appellant shall deposit 'Rs.l4,40,26,168.50p, in two equal instalments, lBt instalment of Rs.7,20,13,084,25p (rounded off to Rs.7,20,13,084/-) ori of before 16.05.2025 and second instalment of Rs.7,20,13,084/- on or before 06.06.2025.
It is made clear that failure to deposit of either of the instalments, the Appeal shall stand rejected. On making such deposit by Petitioner/Appellant, Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai is to invest the same in a Nationalized Bank, from time to time, till further orders are passed.
List the case 10.06.2025, on for reporting compliance. towi CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI (IN-CHARGE, DRAT, MUMBAI) PSA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal can be entertained without waiving the statutory deposit.
Whether the appeal shall be entertained if the appellant deposits 50% of the decretal amount.
Whether the demand of deposit of 50% of the amount is correct.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner/Appellant
State/Recovery Officer
CHAIRPERSON, DRAT, CHENNAI
As recorded by the court registry
8 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
