2026:BHC-OS:1603-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally s P i U gn R e T d I by ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PURTI PRASAD PRASADPARAB PARAB Date:

2026.01.21

16:10:47 +0530 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 21712 OF 2025 Ishtiyaque Aslam Khan …Petitioner Versus DCB Bank and Ors. …Respondents _______

Mr. Aseem Naphade i/b Mr. Rajendra Rathod for the Petitioner.

Mr. Shashank Fadia for Respondent No.1.

Mr. R.B. Mungekar a/w Mr. Sudhanshu Sawant for Respondent Nos. 2 and

3.

_______

CORAM: MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE: 20^th JANUARY 2026.

ORDER :

1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26^th June 2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT, Mumbai). By the impugned order the DRAT, Mumbai has directed the Petitioner to deposit 40% of an amount claimed by Respondent No.1/Bank as amount due from the borrowers, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as a precondition for entertaining the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against rejection of interim reliefs by the DRT, Mumbai, in a Securitization Application filed on behalf of the Petitioner.

3. The impugned order records that in the event the Petitioner fails to deposit 40% of the amount as directed, the Appeal would stand rejected. Since the Petitioner failed to deposit the amount in terms of the self operating clause, the Appeal itself, as on today, has been rejected.

4. The principal ground of challenge raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner is neither borrower nor a guarantor of the subject loan taken by the borrowers, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the condition of pre-deposit as per proviso to Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), could not have been imposed. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Canara Bank and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 6944 has specifically held that when the aggrieved person invoking Section 18 of the (SARFAESI Act) is neither the borrower nor the guarantor, the condition of pre-deposit cannot be imposed.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further relies upon judgments of the Delhi High Court in the cases of Manju Devi & Ors. vs. M/s. R.B.L. Bank Ltd. & Ors.², Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. vs. Vaibhav Jhawar and Others³ and Manoj Kumar Pruthi vs. Magma Housing Finance⁴, to contend that even the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgments has laid down the said principle, as recognized by the Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment in the case of Anchor Electricals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Canara Bank and Another (supra).

6. Reliance is also placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries P. Ltd. and Another vs. Prudent ARC Ltd. and Others⁵ to contend that on a proper reading of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, the insistence on pre-deposit as per the proviso to the said provision can be insisted upon only if the Appellant is a borrower or a guarantor.

7. We have perused the judgment of the Supreme Court, as also the judgments of the Delhi High Court and this Court. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that while Appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act can be filed by any aggrieved person, the proviso mandatorily requiring pre-deposit of 50% of the amount due and for reasons to be recorded at least 25% of the amount due, can apply only to the borrower or the guarantor. Apart from the fact that the language of the provision itself is absolutely clear, the position of law clarified in the aforementioned judgments enures to the benefit of the Petitioner.

8. We are convinced in reaching the said conclusion upon perusing the documents on record, which show that the Petitioner was a tenant in the original building which went into redevelopment. Consequently, being a tenant, Respondent No.4 – Developer entered into a Permanent Alternate Accom