Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Gade Sreenivas Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for quashing drat's order on pre-deposit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on deposit requirement and procedural appeals. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. analysis of rdb act provisions regarding appeal nature. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 21) |
| 4. distinctions in appeals under rdb act vs cpc. (Para 25 , 30) |
| 5. decision to set aside drat's order. (Para 41 , 42) |
ORDER :
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. The petitioner prays for quashing of an order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (‘DRAT’) in I.A.No.567 of 2024 in Miscellaneous Appeal Diary No.972 of 2024.
2. The impugned order was passed in an Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.567 of 2024) filed by the petitioner (the appellant in the I.A.) for exemption from making any deposit for the purpose of hearing the petitioner’s Appeal on merits under section 21 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (‘RDB Act’). By the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, the DRAT disposed of the petitioner’s I.A. by directing the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of 25% of Rs.66,86,20,751/- within four weeks.
3. For understanding of the factual context, the brief facts leading to the impugned order are stated below.
4.
The court ruled that appeals against procedural orders should not be subjected to deposit requirements under section 21 of the RDB Act, preserving natural justice.
Appeal – Any waiver of pre-deposit to entire extent would be against statutory provisions and not sustainable in law.
Orders made by Debts Recovery Tribunal are appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, prohibiting judicial intervention absent exhaustion of statutory remedies.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Debt Recovery Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of ....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when an effective statutory remedy exists under the Securitisation Act, especially in recovery related matters.
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....
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
