Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 142
DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
G. Chandrasekharan, J
Bilcare Limited – Appellant
Versus
Bank of India – Respondent
Misc. Appeal Dy No..947/2025|Appeal No:2/2025|IA No. 1581/2025|M.A. No, 11/2012|Recovery Proceeding No. 281/2023|Writ Petition No. 12028 of 2022|Civil Appeal No. 5290/2025|CRP No. 5-351/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. E. Omprakash
For the Respondents: N
Pre-deposit is not mandatory for appeals against interlocutory orders where no liability is determined, as per RDB Act, 1993.
Headnote:(A) Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - Sections 21 and 30A - Appeal against interlocutory order - The Tribunal found that no pre-deposit is required as the appeal does not involve determination of liability. Petitioners granted 30 days to deposit remaining Rs.3 Crores as required under Section 30A for the appeal to be entertained. (Paras 1, 19, 20)
(B) Legal principle - In appeals against interlocutory orders where no liability is determined, pre-deposit is not mandatory. (Paras 8, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners/Appellants are guarantors for a borrower and sought extension of time for depositing the remaining amount as per Recovery Certificate. They complied with the first installment but requested more time for the second.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal ruled that there is no requirement for pre-deposit in this case and granted time for the deposit.
Issues: The main issue was whether pre-deposit is necessary for appeals against interlocutory orders without liability determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that pre-deposit is only necessary when a final order determining liability is issued, reaffirming that interlocutory orders do not require it.
Result: Appeal disposed of; parties bear their own costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal and financial difficulties. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments for extension of time for payment. (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 3. pre-deposit requirements in interlocutory appeals. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's reasoning on pre-deposit necessity. (Para 14 , 19) |
| 5. conclusion and order on appeal. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER
1. This Appeal is filed against the order passed in LA. No. 1581/2025 in Appeal No.02/2025, by Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune, whereby the aforesaid Application was dismissed giving liberty to the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit the remaining amount mentioned in the order passed in IA No. 1149/2025 on or before 29.05.2025.-
2. The fact leading to filing of this Appeal is that the Petitioners/Appellants are the guarantors and one PT Biltube Indonesia is the borrower. In the Miscellaneous Application No. 11/2012 filed by Respondent, Bank of India against the borrowers and guarantors, Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune, passed an order on 19.01.2023 allowing the M.A. No, 11/2012 with a direction to issue Recovery Certificate against Defendant Nos. 2> 3, 4 and 5 for US $ 1,915,928.44 (equivalent to Indian Rs.9,57,96,422/-) at the rate of 50/- per US $ as on 24.02.2012 together with future interest at the rate of 2% per annum on this amount from the date- of Application Le., 24.02.20T2 till realization of.amount due.
3 The Bank has filed an Application before Recovery Officer in Recoyeiy Proceeding No. 281/2023 for attachment and sale of share- in the Comp any-Bilcare Limited, belong to the Certificate Debtor No. 1. and 4 and in their subsidiary companies. The Petitioners/Appellants submitted One Time Settlement (OTS) Proposal bn 30.05.202:3 offering; to pay USD 550j000. The, said OTS proposal was accepted by Bank of India, and in principle approval was given by its letter dated 12<06.2023. On 18>02i2025.> Learned Recovery Officer passed an order granting time till 10.03.2025 for Certificate Debtors 1 and 4 for making payments as per the: Recovery Certificate j failing which the shares of Certificate Debtors 1 and 4- would be attached, and sold. Against this order, the Petitioners/Appellants filed an Appeal’ in Appeal Nd, 02/2025 before Learned Presiding Officer, DRT, Pune, offering to deposit. 50% of Rs. 12 Crores Ih five inst^rhents. Learned Presiding Officer^ DPT,, Pune, passed an order on 29.04.2025 directing the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit 50% of Rs.12 Crores i.e., Rs.6 Crores in two instalments at Rs.3 Crores each, on or before 01.05.2025 and 15.05.2025 respectively.
4. The case of the Petitioners/Appellants is that the Petitioners/Appellants complied with 1st condition by depositing Rs.3 Crores and filed an Application in I.A. No. 1581/2025 seeking extension of time to make deposit of 2nd instalment of Rs.3 Crores in three instalments at Rs.l Crore each. In the said Application, the impugned order is passed.Therefore, this Appeal is filed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for Petitioners/Appellants submitted that the Petitioners/Appellants have been making genuine attempts to settle loan dues. To show their bonafide, the Petitioners/Appellants deposited Rs.3 Crores and only sought extension of time for depositing the remaining Rs.3 Crores to satisfy the requirement under Section 30A of the RDB Act, 1993. The PetitioherS/AppeUahts are genuinely in. financial hardship. They are: only the; guarantors, and he; submits that, PCtitiorie'rS/Appellahts may1 be given three months1 time Tor making deposit of the balance sum of Rs.3 Crores.
6. It is his further submission that this Appeal is filed only against the order refusing to grant extension of time for making, deposit. There; is no determination of debt due involved in the impugned order. Therefore, this Appeal may be disposed of without pre-deposit.
7. ih support of his submissions,, Learned Senior Counsel for PetibLdners/Appellants relied on the judgement of Honhle 'High Cduft: pf Madras 'in J.S. Traders and Ors Vs. The. Lakshmi Vilas Bank re
