Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
Aloukik Construwell LLP, through its Authorized Representative – Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Gordhandas Vora & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2851 of 2026 With Writ Petition No. 3233 of 2026
Decided On : 08-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Ankit Lohia a/w Ms. Saloni Sulakhe and Ms. Krushika Udeshi, i/b. Dhaval Vussonji and Associates for petitioner in WP/2851/2026 and for respondent No. 2 in WP/3233/2026.
Mr. Charles DeSouza a/w Mr. Rupa Sawangikar, Ms. Pragati Gothi, Ms. Manaswi Agrawal, i/b. Meraki Chambers for petitioner in WP/3233/2026 and for respondent No. 2 in WP/2851/2026.
Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. S. S. Kanetkar, Ms. Bharti Bhansali and Farzeen Pardiwala, i/b. FZB & Associates for the respondent No. 1 in both petitions.

The requirement of pre-deposit under debt enforcement legislation is a mandatory condition precedent for entertaining appeals. The appellate tribunal lacks the authority to grant a complete waiver of this deposit; this requirement applies to any order passed by the primary tribunal, including those on procedural grounds.

Headnote:(A) Debt recovery legislation - Mandatory pre-deposit for appeals under statutory provisions - Interpretation of the term “any order” - Mandatory nature of deposit as a condition precedent for filing an appeal - Appellate tribunal does not possess the authority to grant a complete waiver of pre-deposit beyond statutory limits regardless of whether the order is final or procedural. (Paras 38, 39, 41, 42)

(B) Judicial Discipline - Doctrine of per incuriam - A decision is per incuriam when the court acts in ignorance of a previous decision of a coordinate or higher jurisdiction or a relevant statutory provision - A judgment rendered without addressing binding precedents regarding mandatory pre-deposit requirements is not binding. (Paras 51, 52, 54, 55)

Facts of the case:
Statutory proceedings were initiated for the enforcement of security interest. An application filed by the borrower was rejected for delay, and leave to condone the delay was similarly denied. In an appeal against this dismissal, the appellate tribunal granted a complete waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit. This grant of waiver was challenged on the grounds that the statutory framework necessitates a minimum deposit as a condition precedent for entertaining any appeal against an order passed by the primary tribunal.

Findings of Court:
The appellate tribunal erred by granting a complete waiver of the pre-deposit. The legislature mandated this deposit as a condition precedent, and neither the appellate forum nor the primary tribunal has the power to waive this requirement entirely. The interpretation of “any order” includes both substantive and procedural orders. Directing a status quo without considering the mandatory pre-deposit obligation or the legal tests for interim relief represents a procedural infirmity.

Issues: Whether the appellate tribunal is empowered to waive the mandatory pre-deposit requirement when the appeal is directed against a procedural order, such as the rejection of a condonation of delay application, as opposed to a final determination of debt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statutory provision requiring a pre-deposit of a percentage of the debt is mandatory and constitutes a condition precedent for the maintainability of the appeal. The phrase “any order” broadly encompasses both final and interlocutory orders. Consequently, a decision that permits a complete waiver of this deposit, especially when rendered without acknowledging higher judicial precedents, is per incuriam and cannot be treated as valid legal precedent.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remitted to the appellate tribunal for fresh consideration regarding the mandatory pre-deposit in accordance with statutory guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. An auction purchaser and a bank (secured creditor) have filed these two writ petitions, challenging orders dated 18.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (DRAT). By order dated 18.11.2025, the DRAT, while adjourning hearing on an application for waiver of pre-deposit filed by respondent-borrower, directed the parties to maintain status quo. By order dated 08.12.2025, the DRAT allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit and directed the appeal filed by the respondent borrower and the application for stay, to be registered, for further consideration. According to the petitioners, both the impugned orders are not sustainable.

2. The respondent - borrower i.e. proprietor of M/s. Vora Enterprises availed credit facilities from the petitioner-bank. These facilities were secured by mortgaging a flat and a piece of land, forming the secured assets. On 01.05.2020, the account of the respondent - borrower was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). In this backdrop, on 04.09.2020, the petitioner - bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’).

3. On 16.12.2020, the respondent - borrower filed Securitisation Application No. 52 of 2020 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (DRT-I). An interim application was also filed, but the same was rejected by DRT-I by an order dated 30.11.2021. The respondent - borrower filed Writ Petition No. 1610 of 2022 before this Court. On 02.12.2021, this Court directed the respondent - borrower to pay Rs. 1 crore to the petitioner - bank by 04.12.2021 and further directed that in the meanwhile, taking over of possession of the mortgaged land would be deferred, although the petitioner - bank was permitted to take physical possession of the mortgaged flat. The respondent - borrower complied with the said condition of payment of Rs. 1 crore. But, no further steps were taken for hearing of the writ petition or for payment of further dues and therefore, on 15.03.2022, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the respondent - borrower to approach the DRAT. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 02.12.2021 was continued only for a period of two weeks.

4. On 28.03.2022, the respondent - borrower filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 2022 before the DRAT to challenge the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2021 passed by DRT-I. On 06.04.2022, the DRAT directed respondent - borrower to make pre-deposit in two installments, as per proviso to Section 18(1) of the said Act. These deposits were made and thereupon, the DRAT, on 15.07.2022, passed an order, remanding the matter back to the DRT-I for hearing on the securitisation application itself on merits and it was directed to dispose of the same within a period of two months. Interim stay granted by order dated 06.04.2022 was continued till final disposal of the said application.

5. On 12.05.2023, the DRT-I dismissed the said securitisation application on merits by a reasoned order. The respondent - borrower filed Appeal (D) No. 950 of 2023 on 10.06.2023 before the DRAT. By order dated 07.12.2023, the DRAT directed the respondent – borrower to deposit an amount of Rs. 12 crores as pre-deposit, under proviso to Section 18 of the said Act. Since the respondent - borrower failed to comply with the said direction, the aforementioned appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, on 07.01.2025, the petitioner - bank took possession of the mortgaged land, in accordance with an order passed by a Competent Magistrate, under Section 14 of the said Act. In April 2025, the respondent - borrower approached the DRAT for withdrawal/refund of the amount deposited in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 15 of 2022. Although, the petitioner - bank opposed the said prayer, on 04.06.2025, the DRAT allowed the respondent - borrower to withdraw the said amount.

6. On 09.05.2025, the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYMANISH PITALE, SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.Aloukik Construwell LLP, through its Authorized Representative – Petitioner VersusPradeep Gordhandas Vora & Anr. – RespondentsWrit Petition No. 2851 of 2026 With Writ Petition No. 3233 of 2026Decided On : 08-06-2026