BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Justice Vivek Bharti Sharma, Chairperson I.A. No. 290/2023 (WoD)

In Regular Appeal Diary No. 657/2023 Between SFPL Crop Life Science Pvt. Ltd. … Appellant/s V/s.

Union Bank of India & Ors. …Respondent/s Mr. Ronak Shah, Advocate for Appellant, appeared through a Video Conference.

Ms. Dimple Tejani, Advocate for Respondent No.1 -: Order dated: 16/03/2026: -

The Appellants filed the present Appeal against the impugned order dated 17.04.2023, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Securitisation Application (S.A.) No. 73/2022, whereby the said S.A. was dismissed, and I.A. No. 425/2023, filed by the Respondent Bank for confirmation of the e-auction sale, was allowed. By the said order, the Learned Presiding Officer declined to grant any protection or relief to the Appellants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present Appeal has been filed along with a Waiver Application.

2. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks waiver of the statutory pre-deposit on the ground of financial hardship, submitting that the Appellant company presently has no source of income. In order to show bona fides, the Appellants have expressed their willingness to deposit an amount of ₹50,00,000/-.

3. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank has vehemently opposed the Waiver Application on the ground that the Appellants have failed to place on record any documentary evidence to substantiate their claim of financial hardship. It is further submitted that the Appellants must comply with the mandate of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which requires the deposit of 50% of the amount of debt due before the Appeal can be entertained.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent Bank would further submit that the secured asset has already been sold, possession of the property has been handed over to the auction purchaser, and the Sale Certificate has already been issued. It is therefore submitted that the Appellants should be directed to comply with the statutory requirement.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent also submits that the sale notice amounts as on 31.12.2021 is ₹9,63,50,131/-. While the Appellants have offered to deposit only ₹50,00,000/-, this Appellate Tribunal finds that the said amount is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement contemplated under Section 18 (1) of the SARFAESI Act.

6. Heard the submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, this Appellate Tribunal is of the view that the Appellants are directed to deposit 40% of the sale notice amount of ₹9,63,50,131/-, which comes to ₹3,85,40,052/. The said amount shall be deposited in two equal instalments. The 1^st instalment of

13.04.2026.

8. In the event of failure to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated time, the Appeal shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Tribunal.

9. The amount shall be deposited in the form of a Demand Draft/RTGS with the Registrar of this Appellate Tribunal.

10. As and when the said amounts are deposited, the same shall be invested in term deposits in the name of Registrar, DRAT, Mumbai with any nationalised Bank, initially for 13 months, and thereafter to be renewed periodically.

11. With this observation, the I.A. is disposed of. The Respondent Bank is at liberty to file a reply to the grounds of the Appeal with an advance copy to other sides.

12. List the matter on 16.04.2026 for reporting compliance.

Sd/-

Chairperson psa-02