Heard the learned counsel Sri.Sadiq N Goodwala for the

petitioners, learned counsel Sri. Shivasai M Patil for

respondent No.1 and Sri.Ram P Ghorpade, learned counsel

for respondent No.2 and perused the writ petition papers

along with statement of objections filed by respondent

No.1/Bank.

2.

The petitioners were before the Debts Recovery

Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (for short, 'DRAT') in AIR

No.274/2022 challenging the order dated 18.07.2022 in SA

No.91/2021 and 173/2022 passed by the Debts Recovery

Tribunal, Bengaluru. IA No.354/2022 was filed by the

petitioners praying to exempt from making any deposit as

contemplated under Section 18(1) of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

- 3 -

Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act'). On

the said application, DRAT passed order on 17.04.2023

directing the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of

Rs.1,97,29,181/- within two weeks from the said date i.e. on

or before 1.5.2023, failing which, it observed that appeal

stands dismissed. Challenging the said order, present writ

petition is filed.

3.

Taking note of submission of learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the

petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.1,90,00,000/- before

the DRAT, learned Single Judge granted interim order as

prayed for, subject to the petitioners depositing difference

amount before the DRAT within two weeks from the said

order. On 18.05.2023, it is submitted on behalf of the

petitioners that insofar as balance amount of Rs.7,30,000/-

is concerned, Demand Draft is ready. Learned Single Judge

while extending interim order, as the order under challenge

is of the DRAT, directed the registry to place the writ petition

before the Division Bench of this Court.

- 4 -

4.

Sri.Sadiq N Goodwala, learned counsel submits

that a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- is deposited on 15.05.2023

before the DRAT. Thus, he submits that the petitioners have

deposited entire amount as directed by DRAT. Therefore, he

submits that next course for the DRAT is to hear appeals on

merits. Further, learned counsel submits that a sum of

Rs.10

lakhs

is

deposited

on

31.05.2023

as

the

respondent/Bank had raised objection that a sum of

Rs.9,80,000/- is deposited prior to passing of the interim

order.

5.

Sri.Shivasai

M

Patil,

learned

counsel

for

respondent No.1/Bank would not dispute the deposit of a

sum of R.1,97,29,181/-. Learned counsel would submit that

the petitioners have no locus to approach DRAT.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the

considered view that the petitioners would be entitled for a

direction to DRAT to consider the appeal on merits, since the

appellant has complied interim order of the DRAT dated

17.04.2023. By order dated 17.04.2023, DRAT directed the

- 5 -

petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,97,29,181/- as a

pre-condition to entertain the appeal. Learned counsel for

the petitioners submits that a sum of Rs.1,02,76,000/-

deposited before the High Court is transferred to DRAT,

Chennai. It is stated that the petitioners have deposited a

sum of Rs.87,11,521/- before the respondent/Bank between

9.3.2021 and 19.04.2023, Rs.7,30,000/- is deposited by way

of Demand Draft on 15.05.2023 and thereafter a sum of

Rs.10 lakhs is deposited before the DRAT on 31.05.2023.

7.

Learned counsel for the appellant to produce the

details of payment of Rs.1,97,29,181/- before the DRAT. If

DRAT is satisfied with regard to deposit of Rs.1,97,29,181/-,

DRAT shall hear the appeal on merits.

8.

Proviso to Section 18(1) requires deposit of 50%

of the amount in due to entertain the appeal. In terms of

said provision, the DRAT by order dated 17.04.2023 had

directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.1,97,29,181/.

The said amount, prima facie, as shown by the petitioners is

deposited before the DRAT. If the DRAT comes to the

conclusion that the petitioners have deposited entire