Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
IN THE MATTER OF:Suman Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Union Bank Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
1. The Petitioner has invoked the Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the observations and directions passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRAT”) vide judgment dated 28.02.2025 in Misc. Appeal No. 39 of 2025 and 40 of 2025; as well as against the observations and directions passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRT”) vide common judgment dated 14.02.2025 in Appeal No. 01 of 2025 and TMA 23 of 2024.
2. The DRAT vide the impugned Judgment has refused to entertain the appeal without pre-deposit as mandated under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RDB Act').
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as admitted by the Petitioner leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-
i. Mr. Prakash Srivastava, the husband of the Petitioner, along with other persons stood as mortgagor qua the loan granted by the Union Bank of India (Respondent No. 1) in favour of M/s Green World International Private Limited (Respondent No. 3) on 19.02.2013.
ii. The husband of the P
The requirement of pre-deposit under Section 21 of the RDB Act is mandatory for legal heirs of deceased guarantors in recovery proceedings.
Pre-deposit under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is a mandatory requirement for maintaining an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and it cannot be completely waived even in the face of financial h....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Securitisation Act, especially in recovery related matters.
Point of law: High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relating to matters coming under the purview of SARFAESI Act, 2002, where a st....
The court ruled on the interpretation of pre-deposit requirements for co-sharers under the SARFAESI Act, determining that the issue of limitation warrants fresh consideration by the Debts Recovery Tr....
The Tribunal has the authority to condone delays in SARFAESI Act proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, with emphasis on the necessity of timely action by mortgagors.
Non-borrowers cannot be subjected to pre-deposit requirements under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, confirming strict adherence to statutory definitions.
The court established that compliance with pre-deposit requirements is mandatory for challenging sales under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act and related rules.
The obligation to make a pre-deposit under the SARFAESI Act is strictly on the borrower, and amounts paid by others cannot be appropriated towards this requirement unless the borrower accepts the sal....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
