In this writ petition challenging proceedings of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, the High Court held that there was no manifest illegality in dismissing the appeal for failure to make the statutory pre-deposit as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The petition was dismissed.
No relief. The instant writ petition is dismissed with no costs.
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: 20/10/2017 C O R A M THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.25730 of 2017
Dr.L.Chandramma
Petitioner
Vs 1. Canara Bank rep. by its Senior/Branch Manager Cantonment Branch No.88 Mahathma Gandhi Road Bangalore 560 001. 2. The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal 4th Floor Indian Bank Circle Office 55 Ethiraj Salai Chennai. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in A.I.R.No.204 of 2015 dated 18/8/2017 o the file of the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and consequently direct the second respondent to take on file the appeal in AIR No.204 of 2015.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J)
Challenge in this writ petition, is to the proceedings, dated 18/8/2017, by which Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, dismissed the appeal, for want of compliance or predeposit ordered, on 21/7/2017.
“Ld. counsel Mr.M.Vijayakumar for appellant present.
Ld. Counsel Mr.V.M.Karthik for respondent Bank present.
Heard on I.A.324 of 2015 application for condonation of 316 days delay in filing of the appeal.
Considering the averments in I.A., delay is condoned and I.A.324 of 2015 is allowed.
Heard on I.A.806 of 2017 application for waiver of pre-deposit.
Appellant has challenged the order dated 11/4/2014 of DRT, Bangalore, by which M.A.18 of 2011 has been dismissed, which was filed in O.A.No.102 of 2008 filed by the respondent Bank for recovery of Rs.11.18 lakhs.
In view of the fact that DRAT cannot entertain any appeal without ensuring the predeposit of 50% of the debt amount. I hereby direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with the Registrar of this Tribunal within four weeks from today. It is made clear that in case of default to make the pre-deposit within the stipulated period, the appeal shall automatically stand dismissed without reference to this Tribunal. Accordingly, I.A.806/2017 is disposed of. List for confirmation for pre-deposit of Rs.5 lakhs on 18/8/2017.”
“Ld. Counsel Mr.B.Nedunchezhiyan for appellant present.
Ld. Counsel Mr.K.Rajesh for respondent Bank present.
Ld. Counsel for appellant prays for time for compliance of pre-deposit.
In view of the fact that since 2008, respondent Bank is looking for recovery of more than Rs.11 lakhs, hence no good ground is made out for extension of time.
Appeal is dismissed for want of compliance of pre-deposit.”
as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less.
W.P.No.25730 of 2017
mn(co)
aa09/11/2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal for want of compliance with the pre-deposit order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr.L.Chandramma
Canara Bank
Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal
S.Manikumar
R.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
