SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1561

J. B. PARDIWALA, K. V. VISWANATHAN
Sunshine Builders And Developers – Appellant
Versus
HDFC Bank Limited Through The Branch Manager – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The appeal arises from the High Court's rejection of the appellant's Writ Petition, affirming the DRAT's order for a pre-deposit of Rs.125 Crore (!) (!) . - The High Court found that the appellant's consent to the mortgage was not perverse and that a mortgagor falls within the definition of "borrower" under Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act (!) . - Section 2(1)(f) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, defines "borrower" to include any person who has given a guarantee or created a mortgage as security for financial assistance (!) . - The DRAT arrived at the pre-deposit figure of Rs.125 crores based on the debt due being approximately Rs.259 crores as indicated in the sale notice (!) . - The Supreme Court questioned whether Section 18's pre-deposit requirement applies to orders that are procedural, such as declining to implead auction purchasers in pending proceedings before the DRT (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized the need for a meaningful interpretation of the expression "any order" in Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act (!) . - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's impugned order and remitted the matter to the High Court for reconsideration (!) . - The High Court is to rehear the Writ Petition and decide it afresh in accordance with the law (!) . - If an adverse order is passed by the High Court, the appellant can approach the Supreme Court again (!) . - The appeal is disposed of, and pending applications are also disposed of (!) (!) .

What is the definition of "borrower" under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and does it include a mortgagor?

What is the applicability of the pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act to orders other than those determining liability?

How should the High Court interpret Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act concerning pre-deposits for appeals against interim or procedural orders?


Table of Content
1. condonation of delay and granting leave. (Para 1 , 2)
2. high court's order on pre-deposit. (Para 3 , 4)
3. counsel heard; appeal basis acknowledged. (Para 5 , 6)
4. high court's interpretation of mortgage consent. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. pre-deposit requirement under sarfaesi act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
6. interpretation of appellate provisions. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. remand for reconsideration of the petition. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 19-3-2024 in Writ Petition No.3929/2024 by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition filed by the appellant - herein and thereby affirmed the order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal dated 29-2-2024 in Interim Application No.614/2022 in Appeal (Diary) No.1208/2022.

4. The impugned order passed by the DRAT which was made subject matter of challenge before the High Court was one directing the appellant - herein to deposit a sum of Rs.125 Crore as a pre-deposit under Section 18 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interes

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top