IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 11.12.2025 Pronounced on: 27.02.2026 Uploaded on: 27.02.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full Judgment is pronounced: Full Judgment M/S SHRI KRISHNA POULTRY FEED ... PETITIONER Versus CANARA BANK THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present:- Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate (arguing counsel)

Ms. Neelam Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner/Borrower.

Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate for the respondent/Bank.

*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking writ of Certiorari for setting aside of the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi in appeal No. 279/2024, besides seeking writ of Mandamus directing the DRAT to hear the appeal without any further demand of deposits as the requisite amount of 50% pre-deposit stipulated in the second proviso to Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short SARFAESI Act, 2002) stands already deposited.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner firm was running poultry feed firm and had availed cash credit limit from the respondent Bank in the year 2015. Due to financial irregularity in the account, during Covid-19 Pandemic, the account was declared as Non Performing Asset (NPA), and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 initiated by way of issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, followed by consequential proceedings. Notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on ₹

16.04.2024 mentioning amount of 34,31,000/- to be outstanding against the petitioner (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, auction of the property was held for ₹

39,24,000/-. The petitioner preferred SA No. 347-2024 before Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2024 (Annexure P-3).The petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure P-4) before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi under Section 18 of the SARFAESI, Act wherein he deposited Rs. 31,00,000/- as pre-deposit and sought exemption from deposit of 50% amount as claimed by the petitioner but the learned DRAT vide order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) rejected the application which has been assailed in the present petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned DRAT New Delhi is against the proviso contained under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act itself. He submits that the petitioner being borrower was required to deposit with the appellate Tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due as claimed by the secured creditor or as determined by the DRT, which ever is lesser, as pre-deposit. He points out that in the present case the DRT while adjudicating the Original Application (OA No. 4553/2017), vide order dated 29.12.2018 had issued the Recovery Certificate in favour of the respondent Bank ₹

against the petitioner to the extent of 35,49,723/- along with 12% simple interest per annum on reducing balance, which is Annexure P-4/A. He contends that the amount assessed by the DRT being lesser, therefore, under the provisions of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act the learned DRAT was supposed to seek pre-deposit on the amount whichever is less. He submits that the petitioner under wrong legal advice had moved the application for seeking the pre-deposit @ 25% which infact was not required as the petitioner is entitled to pay pre-deposit in terms of the valuation as assessed by the learned DRT in Recovery Certificate (Annexure P-4/B).

5. Learned counsel representing the respondent Bank has assailed these arguments by submi