A borrower sought recognition of account credits and other deposits as the mandatory appellate pre-deposit. The Court rejected credit for auction purchaser funds and the High Court deposit, and dismissed the writ petition, also holding that the earlier withdrawal without liberty and the unchallenged appeal dismissal barred the relief sought.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.07.2017
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Writ Petition No.15098 of 2017
W.M.P.No.16367 of 2017
Mr.R.Arumugasamy
Managing Director of
M/s. R.A.Samy Trading Pvt Ltd
No.72/2 Kazura Grandens
East Coast Road,
Neelankarai, Chennai 600 041. ... Petitioner
vs.
1. Authorised Officer
United Bank of India
Southern Region
184/132 Ramakrishna Math Road
Mandhavelli
Chennai 600 023.
2. The Branch Manager
United Bank of India
Virugambakkam
Chennai 600 092. ... Respondents.
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of mandamus, directing the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to treat the amount of Rs.7,29,06,389/- (Rupees Seven crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Nine only), standing in the petitioner's account along with Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) deposited in DRAT as pre-deposit under the second proviso of Section 18 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
For Petitioner : Dr.S.N.Amarnath For Respondents : Mr.P.S.Ganesh for M/s.Kurian Associates for R.1.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S. MANIKUMAR, J.)
Borrower, has defaulted in payment and hence Bank has issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, claiming a sum of Rs.20,65,92,565/-. Thereafter, possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, has been issued. Challenging the same, M/s.R.A.Samy Trading Pvt Ltd., Chennai and R.Arumugasamy/petitioners have filed S.A.No.76 of 2013 under Section 17(1) of the Act. S.A.No.76 of 2013, has been dismissed, on 05.06.2015.
“The confirmation of sale cannot be held as illegal, as the confirmation was made after dismissal of the writ petition, on 8th January, 2015. Having held that the security interest was properly created, the subsequent measures taken by the secured creditor Bank by issuance of demand notice and thereafter, possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, are in accordance with law and cannot be faulted with. We are informed that the dispute is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all grounds available under the provisions of law in the pending dispute, if so advised.”
so deposited, would be paid to the auction purchaser, along with interest and compensation, which might be determined by the High Court.
“In view of the aforestated statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to withdraw these petitions.”
filing necessary payment out application, if necessary and to make use of the same to his aid before the Tribunal.
in favour of the Registrar General, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
"It is further submitted that already a sum of Rs.7 Crores was deposited before the Registrar, High Court, Chennai, in pursuance of the Supreme Court Order and also filed Review Application before the Hon'ble High Court. Accordingly, it was filed and it came before the Divisional Bench of the Hon'ble High Court today (04.07.2016) and it will be finalized within a period of 3 weeks. The amount deposited in High Court in any event will be credited towards the loan account to the tune of Rs.5,51,00,000/- (Five Crore and Fifty One Lakhs) which is over and above 25% to satisfy the order. However, I am filing the application today seeking extension of time for depositing the 25% less Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) by a further period of 8 weeks subject to the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court for transfer of the funds from High Court to the Respondent Bank in lieu of the consideration paid by the auction purchaser. In any event the amount of Rs.5,51,00,000/(Five Crore and Fifty One Lakhs) is available in deposit to the credit of the Bank. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to extend the time to report regarding the compliance of the order passed for, by the Hon'ble Tribunal on transfer of funds. The demand draft Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) along with the Memo, filed by me, before the DRT, Chennai, is annexed herewith."
“He further submitted that as per order, dated 13/6/2016, after calculation, the amount of Rs.3,64,48,141/- was required to be deposited within 30 days from the date of order, dated 13/6/2016. It was prayed that the appellants be given four weeks more time, to deposit the balance amount because of the liquidity problem.
Learned counsel for the respondent Bank has strongly opposed the contention of the learned counsel
for the appellants, for extending the time and prayed that the appellants have complied with the order dated 13/6/2016.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice, I deem it just and proper to direct the appellants to deposit Rs.64,48,141/-, within a period of seven days, from today and the balance amount of Rs.3 crores to be deposited, within a period of three weeks from today. Application for extension of time filed by the learned counsel for the appellants is accordingly decided.
It is made clear that interim order granted by this Tribunal, on 13/6/2016, is extended for a further period of three weeks from today.
It is also made clear that if the appellants fail to deposit the amount as directed above, interim order granted by this Tribunal shall stand automatically vacated.
List this case on 22/8/2016, as jointly prayed.”
“This writ petition is withdrawn as not pressed. It may be dismissed.”
Recording the endorsement so made, writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn.
learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a sum of Rs.5,88,78,195/- deposited by the auction purchaser, for the auction held on 20.10.2014, also to be treated towards predeposit, as the said amount is deposited in the loan account of the writ petitioner. We have perused the Bank statement. The total amount deposited upto 31.12.2016 is Rs.7,29,06,389.66. Balance as on 31.12.2016 was Rs.5,73,78,195/-.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties appearing on either side.
09.12.2013, under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, was challenged in S.A.No.76 of 2013 and the same has been dismissed on 05.06.2015. When the challenge to the possession notice was pending, the borrower has filed W.P.No.27520 of 2014, for a Writ of Certiorari, to set aside the sale notice, dated 15.09.2014 and when the said writ petition was pending, the borrower has filed another W.P.No.32716 of 2015, challenging the dismissal of S.A.No.76 of 2013, without approaching the appellate forum, i.e., Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.
46. In the mean time, W.P.No.19531 of 2015, has been dismissed on 06.07.2015, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and that the petitioner has filed regular appeal in Appeal in R.A.(SR)No.520 of 2015, under Sub-Section (1) of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the order, dated 05.06.2015, made in S.A.No.76 of 2013.
47. Setting out the details of some payments made in the Waiver Application to R.A (S.A) A.I.R.No.520 of 2015, the petitioner has contended that the question of pre-deposit, cannot be arrived at, due to the fact that there should be some percentage of debt, claimed or determined by the Tribunal. According to the borrower, the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai, in S.A.No.76 of 2013, dated 05.06.2015, is vague and non-speaking. The Borrower has also contended that as per Proviso (2) to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the appellate authority has power to waive the pre-deposit, in entirety. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.15447 of 2012, dated 05.07.2012.
48. By a common order, dated 09.02.2016, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed both W.P.No.27520 of 2014 and W.P.No.32716 of 2015, and granted liberty to the writ petitioner to raise all the grounds, available under the provisions of law, in the pending dispute, if so advised.
49. Though Dr.S.N.Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos.4887-4888 of 2016, dated 29.02.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has permitted the borrower to file review applications, before this Court, to challenge the common order in W.P.No.27520 of 2014 and W.P.No.32716 of 2015, dated 09.02.2016, on the submission that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit Rs.7 Crores (Rupees seven crores only), before this Court and on that said basis, SLPs were permitted to be withdrawn, to approach this Court with the review applications and accordingly, the borrower has deposited a sum of Rs.7 Crores to the Registrar (General), High Court, Madras and further contended that the said deposit should also be taken into
account, towards pre-deposit, directed to be made in Regular Appeal (SR) No.520 of 2015, this Court is of the view that the same cannot be countenanced, for the reason that subsequently, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing Revision Petition Nos.82 and 83 of 2016, dated 18.04.2017, has made it clear that dismissal of review petitions would not preclude the review petitioner to approach the competent forum/Tribunal, to raise all factual and legal pleas/objections, (relating to sale transaction, its inadequacy of price/underbidding), in the subject matter in issue therein, and seek for redressal of the grievances, in the manner known to law and in accordance with, he is so desires/chooses.
50. Vide common order in Review Petition Nos.82 and 83 of 2016, dated 18.04.2017, though liberty has been granted to the writ petitioner to seek for refund of the deposit of Rs.7 Crores made before this Court by him, by filing necessary payment out application, if necessary and to make use of the same to his aid before the Tribunal, no material has been placed before this Court to show that the writ petitioner has filed any application to the Registrar (General), High Court, Madras, for refund of deposit of Rs.7 Crores.
51. Though the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has permitted the petitioner to file review applications before this Court and whereas, it was contended by the Bank that it was the petitioner therein, who voluntarily came forward to deposit a sum of Rs.7 Crores, perusal of the common order made in Special Leave to Appeal (c) Nos.4887-4888 of 2016, dated 29.09.2016, shows that ultimately, if auction is set aside by this Court, the amount deposited should be paid to the auction purchaser, along with the interest and some compensation, which might be determined by this Court. In the case on hand, auction has not been set aside by this Court, but by a common order, dated 18.04.2017, in Review Petition Nos.82 and 83 of 2016, permission has been granted to the writ petitioner to raise all grounds in the proceedings, pending before the Tribunal/competent forum.
52. From the order, dated 13.06.2016, made in A.I.R(SA) No.520 of 2015, on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai, it could be deduced that the petitioner had submitted that they were ready and willing to deposit 25% of the demand. For brevity, submission recorded in the above order, is extracted hereunder: "Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are ready and willing to deposit 25% of the demand, amounting to Rs.20,65,92,565/- within a period of 4 weeks from today. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the appellants
will deposit a sum of Rs.25.00 Lacs within a week from today."
53. Before the DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of the DRAT, Chennai, the petitioner has also submitted that they have already deposited a sum of Rs.1.27 Crores, with the respondentBank, after issuance of notice, under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and therefore, the mandatory requirement of predeposit of 25% of the demand raised by the respondent-Bank, be reduced. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking note of the decision in Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. UCO Bank reported in AIR 2011 SC 1913, directed that,
"for entertaining the present appeal, the appellants shall deposit 25% of the amount, as directed in the preceding paragraphs within 4 weeks, from today, out of which, the appellants shall deposit Rs.25 Lakhs within a week from today. The said amount shall be deposited by the appellants in the form of demand draft in the name of the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai, who shall keep the same in the shape of FDR in the Nationalised Bank for a period of six months in auto renewal scheme.”
54. On 13.06.2016, the DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai, has made it clear that if the petitioner fail to deposit the abovesaid amount, under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, within the specified period, the interim order would stand automatically vacated. The DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai, has also directed to post the matter on 20.07.2016. Thus, from the above, it could be deduced that before DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai, the petitioner has expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the demand made under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
55. Thus, before the DRAT, Chennai, an application has been filed for extension of time, to make deposit, as per the order, dated 13.06.2016, on the file of the DRAT, Allahabad. On 15.07.2016, before the DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai, a submission has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they have deposited a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs, in the name of the Registrar, DRAT, Chennai, on 17.06.2016. Further submission has been made that as per the order, dated 13.06.2016, after calculation, a sum of Rs.3,64,48,141/-was required to be deposited, within 30 days from the dateof the order, dated 13.06.2016 and therefore, they prayed four weeks time to deposit the balance amount. Time has also been granted, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.64,48,141/-, within a period of 7 days, from the date of passing of the order and the balance amount of Rs.3 Crores, to be deposited within a period of three weeks, from 15.07.2016.
56. Though before the DRAT, Chennai, by filing extension petition, the petitioner has sought for time to deposit the amount, as stated supra, contending inter alia that in Review Application Nos.82 and 83 of 2016, the petitioner has made a deposit of Rs.7 Crores, in lieu of the sale consideration paid by the auction purchaser and that the Bank had appropriated a sum of Rs.5.51 Crores to the credit of petitioner's loan account, the borrower has filed W.P.No.25708 of 2016, seeking for a Declaration, declaring that the amount deposited with petitioner's account, after notice, dated 02.09.2013, can be accepted as pre-deposit, under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, for numbering the appeal in R.A.(S.A.)AIR.No.520 of 2015, on the file of the DRAT, Chennai.
57. Thus, it could be seen that on 15.07.2016, when the petitioner prayed for extension of time, before the DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai, he has filed W.P.No.25708 of 2016, for a declaration, declaring the amount deposited in their account, after the issue of demand notice on 02.09.2013, to be accepted as pre-deposit, under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, for numbering of the appeal in R.A.(SA). AIR.No.520 of 2015, on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai.
58. In W.P.No.25708 of 2016, this Court, while ordering notice on 25.07.2016, granted order of status-quo. Thus, it could be seen that the petitioner has successfully prevented the respondent-Bank from taking any coercive steps, without making any pre-deposit, as agreed to, by him, before the DRAT, Allahabad, as Incharge of DRAT, Chennai. Subsequently, when the above writ petition came up for hearing on 21.03.2017, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has made an endorsement to the effect that, “This Writ Petition is withdrawn as not pressed. It may be dismissed.”. Accordingly, on 21.03.2017, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition, as withdrawn.
59. At this juncture, it could be seen that though no leave has been granted by this Court to file a fresh writ petition, the present writ petition has been filed for the same cause of action. Prayer made in the instant W.P.No.15098 of 2017, is for a Mandamus, directing the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, to treat the amount of Rs.7,29,06,389/- (Rupees Seven crores Twenty Nine Lakhs Six Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Nine only), standing in the petitioner's account along with Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five lakhs only) deposited in DRAT as pre-deposit under the second proviso of Section 18 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Supporting the
prayer sought for, at Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit, filed along with W.P.No.15098 of 2017, the petitioner has stated as follows:
“4. .....The Bench of the Hon'ble High Court while disposing the matter gave liberty to approach the DRT for purpose of setting aside the sale and the quantum of sale price to be paid to the auction purchaser. Due to above reason after the issue of Section 13(2), the amount standing is 7.5 crores. Since the deposit Rs.5.51 Crores deposited by the auction purchaser has been credited in my account and in case if the sale is set aside, the amount deposited shall go to the auction purchaser.
5. I humbly state that as stated supra, when the bank took action u/s. 14, I went to Allahabad on 25.05.2016 and later on 30.05.2016 and 13.06.2016, when the incharge the DRAT at Allahabad directed to deposit Rs.3.64,48,414/- before 13.05.2016 but as stated in proceeding para on my depositing of Rs.7 Crores on 10.03.2016 in the Writ Petitoin, the auction sale consideration of Rs.5.51 Crores is deemed to be the deposit by me. As funds were provided by auction purchaser subject to the order of set aside the sale which in now pending before the DRT-III, Chennai in S.A.Sr.4439.”
60. The very same averments have been made in W.P.No.25708 of 2016, filed for a Declaration, declaring that the amount deposited with petitioner's account, after notice, dated 02.09.2013, can be accepted as pre-deposit, under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, for numbering the appeal in R.A.(S.A.) AIR.No.520 of 2015, on the file of the DRAT, Chennai and that the petitioner has withdrawn the said writ petition, without leave.
61. On the facts and circumstances of the instant case, one of the issues, to be considered, is whether the dismissal of W.P.No.25708 of 2016, as withdrawn, without any leave from this Court to file fresh writ petition, would apply, as res judicata in the subsequent proceedings, initiated by the borrower, on the very same averments, moreso, in our considered view, to say so, on the whims and fancies of the petitioner, at any point of time. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the judgment made in Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti reported in 1997 (2) SCC 534, is applicable to the case on hand. At Paragraph 13 of Avinash Nagra's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"He filed the writ petition in first instance but withdrew the same without permission of the Court with liberty to file the second writ
petition which was dismissed. Therefore, the second writ petition is not maintainable as held by the High Court in applying the correct principle of law."
"The question for our consideration is whether it would or would not advance the cause of justice if the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code is adopted in respect of writ petitions filed under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India also. It is common knowledge that very often after a writ petition is heard for some time when the petitioner or his counsel finds that the court is not likely to pass an order admitting the petition, request is made by the petitioner or by his counsel to permit the petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition without seeking permission to institute a fresh writ petition. A Court which is unwilling to admit the petition would not ordinarily grant liberty to file a fresh petition while it may just agree to permit the withdrawal of the petition. It is plain that when once a writ petition filed in a High Court is withdrawn by the petitioner himself he is precluded from filing an appeal against the order passed in the writ petition because he cannot be considered as a party aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court. He may as stated in Daryao v. State of U.P. in a case involving the question of enforcement of fundamental rights file a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the High Court. The relevant observation of this Court in Daryao case1 is to be found at p. 593 and it is as follows:
“If the petition is dismissed as withdrawn it cannot be a bar to a subsequent petition under Article 32, because in such a case there has been no decision on the merits by the court. We wish to make it clear that the conclusions thus reached by us are confined only to the point of res judicata which has been
argued as a preliminary issue in these writ petitions and no other.”
The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again."
(emphasis supplies)
“As prayed list for review on compliance or for dismissal of Appeal on 15.05.2017.”
“Admittedly, order, dated 13.06.2016, of predeposit has not been complied.
Appellant is praying for time on some personal ground including ailment and death etc.,
On earlier occasion also, time was extended on the same ground. It is made clear that DRAT cannot entertain any Appeal without ensuring the pre-deposit and order, dated 13.06.2016, has not been complied with.
Hence, Appeal is dismissed for want of compliance.”
66. In Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch-I, Chennai v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 237, the legal question required to be answered by the Hon'ble Division Bench is as follows: “(i) Whether there could be any complete waiver of deposit amount to be made by the borrower/guarantor, while preferring an appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, as contemplated under Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SARFAESI' Act)? and (ii) Whether credit could be given to the borrower/guarantor as against the amount deposited/paid by the auction purchaser towards the sale price?"
67. After considering the submissions of the borrower visa-vis Bank and Auction Purchaser, that the amount paid cannot be adjusted, under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, at Paragraphs 13 and 14, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“ 13. We are unable to accept this part of the order of the Appellate Tribunal also, since being illegal. As could be seen from Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, extracted supra, the condition precedent for entertaining any appeal preferred by a 'borrower' is deposit of 50% of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. But, a power has been granted to the Appellate Tribunal, to reduce the amount to not less than twenty five percent of the debt, for the reasons to be recorded in writing. To understand as to who is the 'borrower', we shall revert back to the definition Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act. Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act defines the term 'borrower' in the following terms:
"borrower" means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by any bank or financial institution and includes a person who becomes borrower
of a securitisation company or reconstruction company consequent upon acquisition by it of any rights or interest of any bank or financial institution in relation to such financial assistance;"
"8. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under the third proviso to the sub-section, the Appellate Tribunal has the power to reduce the amount, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, to not less than twenty-five percent of the debt, referred to in the second proviso. Thus, there is an absolute bar to entertainment of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act unless the condition
precedent, as stipulated, is fulfilled. Unless the borrower makes, with the Appellate Tribunal, a predeposit of fifty percent of the debt due from him or determined, an appeal under the said provision cannot be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. The language of the said proviso is clear and admits of no ambiguity. It is well-settled that when a statute confers a right of appeal, while granting the right, the Legislature can impose conditions for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of the Act, the conditions hedged in the said proviso cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of pre-deposit under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act being a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under the said Section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to comply with the said mandatory requirement."
69. Yet another point to be considered in this case, is that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that final order dismissing the appeal in AIR.No.520 of 2015, has not been challenged. Whereas, a Mandamus has sought for. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court can mould the relief and pass appropriate orders, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any equity. Prayer sought for, cannot be granted.
70. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
skm
To
1.The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. Authorised Officer
United Bank of India
Southern Region
184/132 Ramakrishna Math Road
Mandhavelli
Chennai 600 023.
3.The Branch Manager
United Bank of India
Virugambakkam
Chennai 600 092.
+1cc to Mr.Dr.S.N.Amarnath, Advocate SR.No.49468
W.P.No.15098 of 2017
LRS(CO)
GN(21/07/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Could auction proceeds credited to the borrower's account or a deposit with the High Court satisfy the statutory appellate pre-deposit?
Was a fresh writ petition on the same cause maintainable after withdrawal of the earlier petition without liberty?
Could mandamus be granted when the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with pre-deposit remained unchallenged?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya SamitiApplied¶109
Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti reported in 1997 (2) SCC 534 · Who else cites this
Rev. Fr. J.G.Jesudas, etc., v. The Government of Tamil NaduRelied on¶113
Rev. Fr. J.G.Jesudas, etc., v. The Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 1998 Writ.L.R. 756
Sarguja Transport v. STATRelied on¶113
1987 (1) SCC 5 (Sarguja Transport v. STAT) · Who else cites this
Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch-I, Chennai v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, MumbaiFollowed¶129
Indian Bank, Asset Recovery Management Branch-I, Chennai v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 237
Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. Uco Bank & Ors.Followed¶135
Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. Uco Bank & Ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1913 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Arumugasamy
Authorised Officer, United Bank of India, Southern Region
The Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Virugambakkam
S. MANIKUMAR
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
