Disposed¶40

Smt.Munshi Asma Nasir v. Idbi Bank Limited

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2026WP/38490/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-deposit waiver; statutory deposit to maintain DRAT appeal; Karnataka HC DB (D K Singh & S Rachaiah JJ.), WP 38490/2025 (GM-DRT), order dt. 05.01.2026; challenge under Arts. 226/227 to DRAT Chennai order dt. 08.12.2025 in IA No. 1551/2025 in A.IR.No. 1849/2025 (appeal out of S.A. No. 230/2025); 40% pre-deposit on widow non-borrower/non-guarantor reduced to 25% of IDBI Bank demand; deposit within three weeks, DRAT to decide appeal on merits expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to maintain her appeal before the DRAT on payment of a statutory pre-deposit of 25% of the demand raised by the respondent-bank (reduced from the 40% imposed by the DRAT); upon deposit of the 25% within three weeks, the DRAT is to decide the appeal on merits expeditiously. ¶40

Smt.Munshi Asma Nasir Vs Idbi Bank Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

What percentage of the demand raised by the respondent-bank the petitioner — the widow of the borrower, herself neither borrower nor guarantor and claiming lack of means — must deposit as the statutory pre-deposit to maintain her appeal before the DRAT, i.e., whether the 40% imposed by the DRAT should stand or be reduced.

¶35

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions and the fact that the petitioner is the widow of the borrower who is ready to deposit 25%, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the demand raised by the bank as the statutory deposit to maintain her appeal, in place of the 40% imposed by the DRAT.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Conditional direction attached to the relief: if the petitioner deposits 25% of the demand raised by the bank within a period of three weeks from the date of the order, the DRAT shall decide the appeal on merits expeditiously.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka (D K Singh and S Rachaiaah JJ.; order per D K Singh J.) in WP No. 38490 of 2025 (GM-DRT), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a widow of the borrower, who is herself neither borrower nor guarantor, against the order dated 08.12.2025 of the DRAT, Chennai, passed in her waiver application (IA No. 1551/2025 in A.IR.No. 1849/2025, in the appeal arising out of S.A. No. 230/2025) imposing a pre-deposit of 40% of the bank's demand for maintaining the appeal. Counsel submitted she lacked means to deposit 40% and offered 25%. Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the demand raised by the bank as the statutory deposit to maintain her appeal, and ordered that upon such deposit within three weeks the DRAT shall decide the appeal on merits expeditiously.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:92-DB WP No. 38490 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 38490 OF 2025 (GM-DRT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. MUNSHI ASMA NASIR W/O SRI. NASIR GULAMKHAWAJA MUNSHI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT C1-1001 GOLDEN PALMS APARTMENT, NARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHENDRA G, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

IDBI BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, IDBI HOUSE, NO 58, MISSION ROAD

¶16

BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶17

SRI. GULAMKHAWAJA SEERAJUDDIN MUNSHI MAJOR,

¶18

R/AT C1-1001, GOLDEN PALMS APARTMENT, NARAYANPURA, BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:92-DB WP No. 38490 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. NASIR GULAMKHAWAJA MUNSHI S/O SRI. GULAMKHAWAJA SEERAJUDDIN MUNSHI, MAJOR, R/ATC1-1001, GOLDEN PALMS APARTMENT, NARAYANAPURA , BENGALURU – 560 077.

¶22

M/S MO-AN ADVERTISING SERVICES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI NASIR GULAMKHAWAJA MUNSHI, OFFICE AT NO 47, 3^RD FLOOR, WHEELERS ROAD, COX TOWN BENGALURU – 560 005.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS/CERTIORARI AND/OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.12.2025 PASSED BY THE DRAT, CHENNAI IN THE PETITIONER’S WAIVER APPLICATION IN APPEAL ARISING OUT OF S.A. NO.230/2025, WHEREBY A PRE-DEPOSIT OF 40% HAS BEEN IMPOSED UPON THE PETITIONER, A NON-BROWWER & A NON-GUARANTOR AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:92-DB WP No. 38490 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶33

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Chennai in IA No. 1551/2025 in A.IR.No. 1849/2025 filed by the petitioner/appellant..

¶34

The petitioner had filed the aforesaid application seeking waiver of the statutory deposit. The DRAT, however, has directed the petitioner/appellant to deposit 40% of the demand of the respondent-bank.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the widow of the borrower and she does not have means to deposit 40% of the demand raised by the bank to maintain the appeal. However, he submits that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the demand raised by the bank to maintain the appeal.

¶36

Having considered the submissions and also the fact that the petitioner is the widow of the borrower and she is ready to deposit 25% of the demand as the statutory deposit to maintain the appeal, we dispose of this petition, directing the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:92-DB WP No. 38490 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

petitioner to deposit 25% of the demand raised by the bank to maintain her appeal.

¶41