Appeal Dy. No. 722/2025 Date: 29.05.2025 Tiger Inn Vs. Indian Bank Present: Shri Maneesh Mehrotra, counsel for the appellant, Ms. Shalini Choudhary, counsel for the respondent-Bank, Shri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the respondent no. 2-auction purchaser, Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 1,62,19,792/- on different dates against the amount claimed in O.A. i.e. Rs. 3,13,68,363/-, which is more than 50% of the amount claimed in the O. A., therefore, no further amount is required to be deposited by the appellant for entertaining the appeal. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant is still ready and willing to repay the legitimate dues of the respondent-Bank. It is, therefore, prayed that the waiver application may be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent-auction purchaser submits that the present dues against the appellant is Rs. 4,46,05,799/- as the same has been calculated by the Tribunal below. The learned counsel further submits that as per affidavit dated 20.04.2025 filed by the Bank before the Tribunal below, the appellant has only deposited Rs. 1.22 crores. It is also submitted that the appellant cannot claim the waiver on the basis of payment made to the respondent no. 1-Bank, therefore, it is prayed that the appellant may be directed to deposit 50% of the amount as calculated by the Tribunal below to satisfy the rigour of Section 21 of the RDB Act, 1993.

Considered the rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

The main controversy involved in the present case is, as to what amount would be relevant for the purpose of pre-deposit either before this Tribunal or before the Tribunal below?

It appears that the respondent-Bank had filed an original application for recovery of Rs. 3.13 crore and odd along with interest, in which a consent decree was passed, but due to non-compliance, the recovery certificate was issued for the said amount along with interest and execution proceeding was initiated by registering the same as RC No. 311/2018 before the Recovery Officer.

The contention of the appellant that the appellant has already deposited Rs. 1.62 crores and odd with the respondent-Bank has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the Bank, thus there is no dispute with regard to the said deposit with the Bank.

Admittedly, against the claim of Rs. 3.13 crores and odd, the appellant has deposited Rs. 1.62 crores, which is more than 50% of the said amount, therefore, no further amount is required to be deposited for maintaining the appeal in view of Section 21 of the RDB Act. Accordingly, the waiver application stands disposed of.

So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in Appeal Dy. No. 2896/2024 under Section 30 of the RDB Act, by which the appellant has been directed to deposit Rs. 2,23,02,899/- towards pre-deposit as required under the said Act for entertaining the appeal.

Against any order passed by the Recovery Officer, if any appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the said Act, Section

30-A could apply, which says as under.

“30-A. Deposit of amount of debt due for filing appeal against orders of the Recovery Officer. Where an appeal is preferred against any order of the Recovery Officer, under Section 30, by an person from whom the amount of debt is due to a Bank or financial institution or consortium of banks or financial institutions, such appeal shall not be entertained by the Tribunal unless such person has deposited with the Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal”.

From the above, it is clear that the appellant has to deposit 50% of the amount of debt due as determined by the Tribunal below. In the present case, the debt due as determined by the Tribunal below is Rs. 3.13 crores, for which the Recovery Certi