Under Section 21 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, a minimum pre-deposit of 25% of the debt due is mandatory for the Appellate Tribunal to entertain an appeal or a waiver application, and failing this, the appeal cannot be considered on its merits.

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.01.2026 IN IA 854/2025 IN AIR NO.788 OF 2025 OF DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 20.03.2025 IN APPEAL NO.14 OF 2019 OF DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL- 2, ERNAKULAM

THIS OP (DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2026

The petitioner is the appellant in AIR No.788/2025 on the files of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Tribunal’, for short). The above appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P12 order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Appeal No.14/2019 in O.A.No.348/2003. The appeal was filed by the petitioner challenging the proclamation of sale dated 07.11.2005 issued by the Recovery Officer in DRC No.1480 arising out of the final order passed in OA No.348/2003.

2. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed Ext.P14 interlocutory application seeking waiver of the statutory pre-deposit and an application for stay. By Ext.R2 (h) order dated 05.12.2025, the Appellate Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit 40% of the amount determined by the Tribunal at Rs.10,87,387.75 with future interest at 25% per annum from the date of application, till the date of the order, in two equal installments as pre-deposit. Since the petitioner did not comply with the afore condition, I.A.No.854/2025 was dismissed on 13.01.2026 as per Ext.P15 order. Consequently by the same order the appeal was also rejected. It is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order, this OP (DRT) has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. There is no representation for the other respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P15 order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the calculation made by the Tribunal regarding the amount due is totally incorrect and hence, the petitioner is not liable to pay the amount as ordered. He also prayed that the amount directed to be deposited may be reduced to 25% and an opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to contest the appeal on merits.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the attempt of the petitioner is only to protract the matter. They argued that the petitioner has not even deposited 25% of the debt due, while filing the appeal and waiver application and therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in entertaining the waiver application itself and passing orders on it. They further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal directing him to deposit 40% of the debt due and has only challenged the consequential order dismissing the waiver petition and hence, he is not entitled to seek deposit of 25% of the debt due. Hence, they prayed that this OP (DRT) may be dismissed.

6. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. At the outset itself, it is to be seen that the petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal directing him to deposit 40% of the debt due, as a pre condition for entertaining the app