JUDGMENT

S.K. Mishra, J. - Heard Shri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2 / Bank and Shri Shankar Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the respondent no. 3.

2. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition) and order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition) passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal" for brevity) and further to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, allowing the waiver application of the petitioners, which was filed for hearing the appeal without making statutory deposit, as envisaged in second proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act" for brevity).

3. It is not disputed that initially, on 31.10.2014 a first demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued against the petitioners demanding a sum of Rs. 2,64,51,383.50/-. Against the said demand notice, the petitioners, on 14.10.2016, deposited Rs. 31,49,604/- with the respondent Bank. A second demand notice was issued by the respondent Bank demanding Rs. 1,99,86,784.90 and on 13.12.2017, the land of the petitioners was put to auction and Rs. 66,00,000/- were realized by the Bank. Then, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Tribunal on 25.10.2018. On 17.11.2018, the plant and machinery were put to auction and a total sum of Rs. 31,85,000/- were recovered and adjusted towards loan. Now, the remaining outstanding amount of loan to be paid by the petitioners is Rs. 70,52,180.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed an application before the Tribunal for waiver of the deposition of the statutory amount. The Tribunal took the matter into consideration and came to the conclusion that petitioners should be directed to deposit 25% of the outstanding amount, as on the time of filing of appeal, which is Rs. 30,00,000/- in the form of demand draft on or before the next date. However, petitioners filed another application for recall of the aforesaid order and for complete waiver of the statutory deposit. The learned Tribunal did not accede to the same and directed that 25% of the amount due should be deposited by the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 6060 of 2020 (Prudent ARC Ltd. Vs. Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries and others) wherein the Delhi High Court, after taking into consideration various judgments, has summed up the conclusion, which reads as under:

"(a) Pre-deposit contemplated under the second proviso of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is mandatory in nature and cannot be waived by the learned DRAT.

(b) While computing the "amount of debt due", the amount of debt claimed by the secured creditor in its notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act, shall be relevant and any future interest need not be taken into consideration for purposes of determining, "the amount of debt due as claimed by the secured creditor", in cases where the DRT has not determined the liability of a borrower.

(c) The interest component shall be ignored only for the purposes of Section 18 of the Act. This judgment shall not affect the rights of the secured creditors to claim interest from the borrower, for recovery of amounts due under the RDDB Act.

(d) Any amount that has been repaid by the borrower and/or recovered by a secured creditor after filing of the petition under Section 17, shall stand to the benefit of the borrower while computing the "amount of debt due" under the second proviso to Section 18 of the S