The statutory remedy of appeal under the SARFAESI Act can be invoked only upon making a certain pre-deposit, as per the clear language of Section 18, and the High Court cannot give directions contrary to law.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case be listed with W.P. (C) No. 8845/2021. However, there is no occasion for doing so because that writ petition has already been disposed-off by order dated 23.09.2021. A subsequent order passed on 11.01.2022, was because the case was listed on Office Note, apropos seeking extension of time sought by the learned DRT, Allahabad for disposal of the matter. A subsequent application moved by the present petitioner, seeking modification/clarification of the order dated 11.01.2022, was disposed-off on 31.01.2022.

2. The orders passed on 30.05.2022 and 12.07.2022 show that an endeavour was made between the parties in the past two months, to settle the lis amicably. However, today we are informed that, at the moment, there is no likelihood of a settlement.

3. The petitioner impugns the order of the learned DRAT dated 17.05.2022 in Misc. Appeal No.65/2022, (in S.A. No.93/2015), giving liberty to the petitioner to make a pre-deposit in terms thereof, so that his appeal could be heard. The amount demanded under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act (`Act') was Rs.4,45,81,148.32. Fifty percent of the said amount would be required to be deposited, in the first instance, for the appeal to be heard. If the petitioner wanted a reduction of the same, to 25% of the principal amount in terms of the third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Act, it would be on the basis of the application as may be filed. Such application is yet to be filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the principal amount itself is a matter of dispute, therefore, the requirement of making a pre-deposit on the aforesaid principal amount is unfair. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner pre-supposes that there is an error apropos the principal amount. The issue is yet to be determined in proceedings that are pending.

5. The learned Senior Advocate for R-1 refers to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs. Rajat Infrastructure Private Liited and Ors., (2020)3 SCC 770, which has held that the language of section 18 of the Act is clear and leaves no room for confusion. The pre-deposit is a necessary requirement before any appeal could be heard by the DRAT. The said judgment reads inter-alia as under:

"...

9. We may make it clear that we are not going into the merits of the case in view of the fact that we agree with the High Court that the matter must be decided by DRAT. The only issue is whether the High Court was right in holding that no pre-deposit was required. We may refer to Section 18 of the Sarfaesi Act, which reads as follows:

10. This Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. UCO Bank, held that keeping in view the language of Section 18 even if the amount or debt due had not been determined by DRT, the appeal could not be entertained by DRAT without insisting on pre-deposit. DRAT, at best could, after recording the reasons, have reduced the amount to 25% but could