Court upheld Appellate Tribunal's order requiring pre-deposit for appeal, affirming statutory requirements for minimum deposits.

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this Original Petition, is Ext.P8 order passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in I.A No.632/2024, in AIR (SA) No.1048/2024.

2. When an appeal was preferred by the petitioners challenging the order in S.A No.530/2022, the Appellate Tribunal, as per Ext.P8 order, directed the petitioners to make a pre-deposit of 40% of the amount of Rs.98,58,751.33/-, which comes to Rs.39,43,500.53/-, by permitting the petitioners to deduct a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- already deposited, in pursuance of Ext.P2 order passed by this Court in W.P.(c) No.21833/2024. The Appellate Tribunal, thus, directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.29,43,501/-, in two equal installments, within a period of six weeks.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, Ext.P8 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained, since it runs contrary to the directions passed by this Court in Ext.P2 order, P4 judgment and P5 order. She argued that, as per Ext.P2 interim order, the deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the petitioners has been ordered to be considered while deciding the application filed by the petitioners seeking waiver of the pre-deposit, to be made in the appeal. She further submitted that, similarly, as per Ext.P4 judgment and Ext.P5 order, Rs.15,00,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioners has been directed to be treated as amount towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal without giving credit to Rs.15,00,000/-, as ordered in Ext.P5 order cannot be sustained.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that, Ext.P4 judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext.R2(a) judgment, in W.A No.2323/2025 . He also submitted that, as per the dictum laid down in the said judgment, there is no question of maintaining an appeal and considering an Interim Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit, without depositing at least 25% of the amount. Hence, according to the learned counsel, even if the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- is taken into account, there is no deposit of 25%, for considering I.A No.632/2024.

6. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. Admittedly, at the time of passing of Ext.P8 order by the Appellate Tribunal, there was no deposit of the minimum 25%, as mandated by the statute. A perusal of Ext.P8 order shows that, the Tribunal has given credit to Rs.10,00,000/- which has been paid by the petitioners, towards the pre-deposit for maintaining the statutory appeal. The contention of the petitioners that, the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- which has been deposited as per Ext.P4 judgment and which has been directed to be considered as a pre-deposit as per Ext.P5 order, has also to be given credit towards the pre deposit, for the filing of appeal, has no legs to stand, since, as per Ext.R2(a) judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, Ext.P4 judgment has been set aside.

In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Ergo, this Original Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners remitting the statutory minimum pre-deposit of 25%, and seeking waiver of the balance pre-deposit amount for considering the appeal, if permitted under law.