IMPORTANT POINT
The requirement to pre-deposit up to 50% of the debt due to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the Act, 2002 against any order passed by the Tribunal under Section 17 is mandatory and applicable to any order passed by the tribunal under Section 17, including an order passed in an application to condone the delay in filing S.A., under section 17 of the Act, 2002.

ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

First petitioner-company is engaged in the manufacturing of iron and structure steel for use in Transmission-cum-Telecom Towers. First petitioner-company applied to the 3rd respondentBank for sanction of cash credit limit to a tune of Rs.30.00 crores and letter of credit to a tune of Rs.7.00 crores and the Bank Guarantees. The loan account was made operational from 24.09.2009. In February, 2011, cash credit limit of Rs.9.00 crores was sanctioned. At the time of sanction of loans, the petitioner-company pledged the immovable properties, plant and machinery as collateral security. Holding that the first petitioner-company defaulted in repayment of the loan, the loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and the Bank has taken recourse to the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘Act, 2002’) and Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, ‘Act, 1993’).

2. On 21.09.2012, the 3rd respondent-bank issued possession notice informing the petitioner that the Bank has taken symbolic possession of factory and premises. Aggrieved thereby, S.A.No.421 of 2012 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad and the Tribunal granted interim order. During the pendency of the said S.A., 3rd respondent–bank assigned the loan account to the 2nd respondent. Petitionercompany later withdrew S.A.No.421 of 2012.

3. While so, 3rd respondent-bank filed O.A.No.125 of 2014 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the loans advanced by the Bank. Later, second respondent got impleaded in the said O.A. Petitioner-company was set ex parte. Petitionercompany filed M.A.No.161 of 2018 to recall the said order and the said application is stated to be pending consideration of the Tribunal. W.P.No.30971 of 2017 is filed challenging the action of 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing sale notice on property bearing Sy.Nos.71, 72/73 of Gundlapochampally, MedchalMalkajgiri District. The said Writ Petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal.

4. In paragraph-14, the deponent narrates filing of S.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, application filed for condonation of delay, orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, filing of Appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, etc. We are not recording the said averments in detail as they are not relevant for the purpose of considering the issue in this writ petition.

5. Suffice to note that S.A.(IR).No.1116 of 2019 was filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad challenging the sale notice issued by the 2nd respondent. As there was delay in filing the said S.A. (IR), I.A.No.3746 of 2019 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone the delay in filing S.A.(IR). Said I.A., was dismissed declining to condone the delay. As a consequence S.A. (IR) was also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed Appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Kolkata vide Diary No.446 of 2019. In the said appeal, petitioner filed I.A.No.517 of 2019 seeking waiver of pre-deposit. By the time writ petition was filed, said I.A. is pending for consideration. Court is informed that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Appellate Tribunal passed final orders rejecting application for waiver and challenging the order petitioner filed W.P.No.13321 of 2023 and the same is pending consideration by this Court.

6. Contending that 5th respondent, who is the successful auction purchaser of the assets of the petitioner-company, has started construction activity over the property, excavating the land, leveling the land and raising structures thereon, thereby jeopardizing interests of the petitioner, as the petitioner has been contesting the various steps taken by the respondents 2 and 3 under the Act, 2002, and