On waiver application to reduce pre-deposit under Section 21 RDB Act, Tribunal directed 40% deposit amidst financial hardship claims; denied stay citing Bombay HC precedent on procedure.
Appellants directed to deposit 40% of the determined amount; interim stay denied.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson
I.A. No. 135/2026(WoD)
In
Regular Appeal Diary No. 1811/2025 Between
Wateredge Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. V/s.
State Bank of India
… Appellant/s
…Respondent/s
Herbert A Naronha, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Nagory along with Kulin Shah (VC), i/b M/s C. C. Gandhi & Co., Advocate for Respondent Bank.
-: Order dated: 15/04/2026: -
The present Application has been filed by the Appellant for seeking waiver/reduction of the statutory pre-deposit as mandated under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for entertaining the Appeal.
1
Dy. No. 1863/2025 for seeking stay the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by DRT-II, Ahmedabad.
2
deposit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but not below 25% of the amount of debt so due.
“8. We find on perusal of the impugned order that it suffers from a serious procedural infirmity. The Application considered and decided in the impugned order dated 14th May 2025 was only the Application seeking waiver of predeposit under Section 18 of the Securitisation Act. The only prayer made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the DRAT was for such waiver on the basis of statements made in the said Application. While considering the said Application the DRAT discussed the rival submissions, made certain observations and thereupon found that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were required to deposit 40% of the amount due and that complete waiver from predeposit was not warranted. Having reached the said conclusion the DRAT was expected to issue a positive direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to deposit such 40% amount towards pre-deposit so that the Appeal could be registered and then take up the Application for interim relief and the Appeal for further consideration.
3
Sd/Chairperson
mks-02
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the statutory pre-deposit requirement under Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993, can be reduced below the mandatory 50% on grounds of financial hardship.
Whether the Applicants are entitled to a stay of the impugned order pending the hearing of the appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anil Kumar Pawar & Anr V/s The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India & OrsReferred¶23
Writ Petition No. 15718/2025 in Anil Kumar Pawar & Anr V/s The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India & Ors
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Wateredge Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
State Bank of India
Vivek Bharti Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
