ORDER

The present petition is filed challenging the order dated

6.5.2008 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru1 as well as the orders dated 7.2.2017 and 13.3.2017 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai2.

2. The relevant facts necessary for consideration of the present petition are that challenging the auction sale dated 7.11.2005 conducted by the first respondent3, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 17(1) of the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20024 before the DRT, which was numbered as IR No.934/2007. IA.No.3073/2007 was filed in IR No.934/2007 to condone the delay in filing the said application. The DRT by its order dated 6.5.2008 dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘DRT’

preferred an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRAT in MA (SA) No.339/2010. In the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application to waive the entire pre- deposit amount. The DRAT by its order dated 7.2.2017 disposed of the said application and directed the petitioner to make a pre-deposit of `5.50 lakhs within four weeks from the date of the said order. Since the said pre-deposit was not made, vide order dated 13.3.2017, the appeal was dismissed for want of compliance. Being aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the property was clandestinely sold on 7.11.2005 by the bank, which the petitioner learnt only consequent to the letter dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure-B to the Writ Petition), hence the auction conducted by the bank on 7.11.2005 is illegal and liable to be set aside. He further submits that the entire loan amount due and payable to the bank has been paid by another guarantor and as no amount is due and payable to the bank, the question of making the pre-deposit as ordered by the DRAT does not arise. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the Writ Petition and granting of the reliefs sought for.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent –

bank justifies the orders passed by the DRT and DRAT.

5. The submissions made by both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the orders passed by the DRT and DRAT are erroneous and liable to be interfered with?

6. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as, the petitioner vide IR No.934/2007 has challenged the auction sale conduction by the bank on 7.11.2005. It is further undisputed that in the said auction the property that was brought to sale was sold for a sum of `8,50,000/-. Notwithstanding the fact that the entire arrears due and payable to the bank have been repaid during the pendency of the proceedings, having regarding to the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order bringing the property to sale, the said Sale dated 7.11.2005 is required to be adjudicated in IR No.934/2007. In the event, the petitioner would succeed, the sale would be set aside. Hence, the quantum of money received pursuant to the sale would become payable to the bank. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable to make the pre-deposit.

7. The petitioner is not challenging the quantum of pre-deposit that has been ordered to be paid by the DRAT, but the requirement of the petitioner to make the pre-deposit in the appeal filed by him before the DRAT.

8. Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 20025 , reads as under:

“18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.-

(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Provided that different fees may be prescribed for fil