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 hardship.

JUDGMENT :

RENU BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter 'DRAT') in M.A. No. 60/2025 in Appeal No. 63/2024, whereby the petitioner's appeal arising out of S.A. No. 51/2020 was dismissed solely on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under Section 18 of SECURITISATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FINANCIAL ASSETS AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ACT , 2002 (hereinafter 'SARFAESI Act').

2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute and lawful owner of property bearing no. I-1612, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi (hereinafter 'subject property'), having acquired the same by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.2007. The petitioner asserts that she is a homemaker and has no independent source of income or financial resources apart from the subject property.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 2, namely M/s Worlds Window Impex India Pvt. Ltd., allegedly availed certain credit facilities from respondent No. 4, ECL Finance Ltd. The petitioner states that she has no ownership, managerial role or financial association with respondent No. 2.

4. Respondent No. 3, Mr. Piyoosh Goyal, is stated to be the husband of the petitioner. It is stated that he was shown as a co- guarantor in connection with the credit facilities availed by respondent No. 2. The subject property is stated to have been treated as secured asset in respect of the said credit facilities on the basis of an alleged mortgage purportedly created by respondent No.3.

5. The petitioner further states that the loan account of respondent No. 2 was assigned by respondent No. 4 to respondent No. 1, Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., on 28.06.2019. The petitioner alleges that the said assignment was in violation of the applicable guidelines of Reserve Bank of India governing acquisition of non-performing assets by securitisation/reconstruction companies.

6. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act were initiated in respect of the subject property. Symbolic possession of the subject property was taken on 21.11.2019, and physical possession of the subject property was taken on 25.02.2020. Auction proceedings were initiated in respect of the subject property by issuance of an e-auction notice dated 28.02.2020 scheduling auction of the property. The said auction did not culminate in sale.

7. A subsequent auction notice dated 22.06.2020 was issued scheduling auction of the subject property. The petitioner filed proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter 'DRT'), and by order dated 24.07.2020, the DRT stayed the auction proceedings while granting liberty to initiate fresh auction proceedings in accordance with law.

8. Thereafter, a fresh auction notice dated 10.08.2020 was issued and auction of the subject property was conducted on 16.09.2020. The subject property was sold to respondent No. 6, Jeena Developers, for a consideration of approximately Rs. 10.91 crores.

9. A sale certificate in respect of the subject property was issued on 28.12.2020 and possession of the subject property was handed over to the auction purchaser.

10. The petitioner instituted Securitisation Application No. 51/2020 before the DRT challenging the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act. The same was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2023.

11. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Appeal No. 63/2024 before the DRAT challenging the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the DRT. The said appeal was di