ITEM NO.26 COURT NO.9 SECTION IX S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Miscellaneous Application No. 1060/2025 in SLP(C) No. 2150/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-01-2025 in SLP(C) No. No. 2150/2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India]

M/S ROYAL TRADERS Petitioner(s)

VERSUS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDIA LTD Respondent(s)/Applicant FOR ADMISSION IA No. 119720/2025 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS Date : 14-07-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Jamshed P. Cama, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR Ms. Megha S. Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Vipul Agrawal, Adv.

Ms. Pranjali Khemnar, Adv.

Mr. Arjun Kant, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Sijoria, Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Priyanka Dubey, Adv.

Mr. Sooraj Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Gunjan Joshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Shakdhar, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Bishwajeet Dubey, Adv.

Ms. Radhika Bishwajeet Dubey, Adv.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by C DH atA eN : 2D 0R 2E 5.S 0H 7.15 1 Reason:

Mr. Jagdish Solanki, Adv.

Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv.

Mr. Jonathan Ivan Rajan, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Our Order dated 22-01-2025 reads thus:-

“1. Delay condoned.

2. Exemption Application is allowed.

3.This petition arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 19-12-2024 in Writ Petition L. No.18722/2024, by which the High Court rejected the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner – herein seeking waiver of 50% of pre-deposit in terms of Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), as a consequence the Statutory Appeal filed by the petitioner – herein against the order passed by the DRT, Mumbai came to be dismissed.

4.We have heard Mr. Rajiv Shakdhar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Navin Pahwa, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

5.At this stage, it may not be out of place to state that the Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. also preferred petitions before the High Court of Bombay and they succeeded before the High Court. The High Court disposed of all the Writ Petitions, i.e., one filed by the petitioner – herein and the other petitions filed by the ARCIL by a common Judgment.

6.The petitioner – herein is the original borrower. ARCIL is the assignee of the debt.

7.According to ARCIL, the amount due and payable by the petitioner – herein as on date and as determined by the High Court is Rs.138 Crore.

8.The petitioner – herein has no idea as to what is the exact amount due and payable by them as there are conflicting findings on this issue.

9.Mr. Shakdhar would submit that the amount due and payable as stated in the Notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Act is Rs.132 Crore. In fact, there are three demand notices under the said Section because of three different loan transactions.

10. The DRAT in its impugned order has observed thus:-

“10. After having heard Mr Rohit Gupta and Mr Charles D’Souza, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, and Mr Nitin Thakkar, the Ld. Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1, I find that there are certain discrepancies concerning the amount demanded in the demand notices and the other documents. The respondent had claimed that the amount due on six different accounts concerning the appellant and the sister concerns would add up to ₹142,17,39,819.41. However, the breakups are not available. To get a waiver of 25% of the pre- deposit amount, the appellant would have to satisfy the existence of a prima facie case and also establish financial strain in paying 50% of the amount due for entertaining the appeal. The appellant has created some doubts regarding the validity of the claim put forth by the respondent which would, at best, be an arguable case and cannot be said to be a strong prima facie case