This writ petition challenged the DRAT's order directing a waiver of pre-deposit requirement appeal in banking recovery proceedings.
The writ petition was dismissed; no costs awarded; connected writ miscellaneous petition closed.
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: 14.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.P.No.17918 of 2017
and
WMP No.19447 of 2017
M/s.Jerin Poly Bags, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.M.S.Lenin Sebas ..Petitioner vs.
WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in I.A.No.342 of 2015 in AIR No.191 of 2015 dated 16.06.2017 in so far as the pre-condition deposit amount of Rs.80,00,000/- to entertain the appeal is concerned and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
Challenge in this writ petition, is to an order made in I.A.No.342 of 2015 in A.I.R (S.A.) 191 of 2015 dated 16.06.2017 on the file of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, by which, the appellate forum directed the writ petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.80 Lakhs with the Registrar of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, as pre deposit, to entertain an appeal. Proceedings dated 16.06.2017 impugned is reproduced.
PROCEEDINGS DATED 16.06.2017
Ld. Counsel Mr.CKM.Appaji for Appellant present. Ld. Counsel Mr.S.Kesavan for Respondent present.
Heard IA.342/2015, which is an application filed for waiver.
Appellant has challenged the order dated 06.03.2015 passed by DRT-II, Chennai in IA.No.351/2014 in OA.92/2013, by which IA was dismissed.
Appellant fairly concedes that OA was filed by the Respondent Bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.2.70Crores. This appeal has not been preferred against the final order, rather Appeal has been preferred against the interim order, in which prayer to contest the OA on merits was declined on technical grounds.
Per contra, Respondent counsel submits that despite service on Appellant, DRT was bound to pass an exparte order on 25.11.2014. In place of making repayments, Appellant approached the DRT for setting aside the order passed in IA, which is nothing but a delaying tactics and now the amount has increased to Rs.3.96 Crores.
Without going into the merits of the case, in view of the fact that DRAT cannot proceed further in the Appeal filed by any aggrieved person unless and until the Appellant complies with the formalities on predeposit up to 50% of debt amount, which can be reduced to 25%, but not less than 25% in any case and for the purpose of hearing this appeal, I consider the debt amount to be Rs.2.70 Crores and I hereby direct the Appellant to make pre-deposit of Rs.80 Lakhs with the Registrar of this Tribunal, out of which Rs.40 Lakhs to be paid by the Appellant within four weeks from today as 1st part of payment and 2nd part of payment of Rs.40 Lakhs will be paid by another four weeks thereafter.
In the event of failure of any part of the amount, the Appeal stands dismissed automatically without any reference by this Tribunal.
IA is disposed of and closed.
List for confirmation of pre-deposit of 1st part of payment of Appellant by 14.07.2017.”
25.11.2014 has been passed. To set aside the same, petitioner has filed I.A.No.351 of 2014. Said I.A., came to be dismissed on 06.03.2015.
Rs.2.70 Crores i.e., Rs.80 Lakhs to be deposited with the registry of the appellate forum in two equated instalments. Sufficient time has also been granted to the writ petitioner. OA has been filed in the year 2013. Writ petitioner has remained exparte and that an order has been passed on 25.11.2014. There are no materials indicating that writ petitioner has made any payment. The discretion exercised by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, cannot be said to be erroneous, warranting interference. There are no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ars
TO
The Registrar,
Debts Recovery, Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai -2.
+ 1 cc to Mr.C.K.M. Appaji, Advocate Sr.49905
W.P.No.17918 of 2017
and
WMP No.19447 of 2017
VGI(CO)
EU 3.08.17
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal's discretion to demand a pre-deposit for entertaining an appeal.
Whether the direction to deposit Rs.80 Lakhs at 30% of the admissible debt amount under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act was erroneous.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Jerin Poly Bags (Rep. by Mr. M.S. Lenin Sebas)
The Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
M/s. Canara Bank
S. Manikumar
V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
