HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.34534 OF 2025 DATE: 13.02.2026 Between M/s. Sri Shiva Sai Industries and Three Others ...Petitioners And The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, At Kolkata and Nine Others.

…Respondents Mr. Minnikanti Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Mr. K.Sundeep, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Mr. Nakka Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.

Mr. V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The Writ Petition has been filed against an order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata (‘DRAT’) in Appl. Dy. No.663 of 2024 preferred by the petitioners herein from an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I at Hyderabad (‘DRT’) on 18.06.2024 in Review Application No.08 of 2023 arising out of S.A.No.459 of 2014.

2. The petitioners herein filed an I.A. in the said Appeal (I.A.No.411 of 2024) praying for waiver of the pre-deposit requirement under section 18(1) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘2002 Act’) read with the proviso thereto. The DRAT disposed of the IA, directing the petitioners to make the pre-deposit of 50% of Rs.3.8 crores within four weeks of that order.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order should be set aside since there is no debt due or determined by the DRT or the DRAT.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, including the Bank, have no instructions.

5. The impugned order passed by the DRAT records that the debt due as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the DRT is to be taken into account as the amount due for the purpose of the pre-deposit requirement under section 18(1) of the 2002 Act. Contrary to the submission made on behalf of the petitioners, we find that the order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the DRT in S.A.No.459 of 2014 records that the respondent-Bank issued a Demand Notice dated 05.12.2012 under section 13(2) of the 2002 Act claiming an amount of Rs.3,76,83,869/-.

6. Counsel appearing for the petitioners informs the Court that the second Demand Notice was sent by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein i.e., State Bank of India, MSME Branch, Warangal (erstwhile State Bank of Hyderabad) on 27.12.2013 mentioning an amount of Rs.3,76,54,852/- as due and payable by the petitioners.

7. Hence, as on the date of the impugned order passed by the DRAT, there are at least two documents which reflect the amount due and payable by the petitioners.

8. The second proviso to section 18(1) of the 2002 Act mandates that the Appellate Tribunal shall not entertain any Appeal unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from the borrower, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less.

9. In the present case, both the first and the second Demand Notices issued by the respondent-Bank as well as the relevant part of the order of the DRT mention an amount of Rs.3.76 crores approximately. The DRAT hence correctly came to the view that the petitioners must make pre-deposit of 50% of the debt due amounting to Rs.3.80 crores to satisfy the mandate of the second proviso to section 18(1) of the 2002 Act, in order to maintain the Appeal. We do not find any reason to interfere with this finding of the DRAT.

10. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the infirmities in the order passed by the DRT or that the petitioners’ account had not been rendered as NPA at any point of time, are matters to be decided in the pending Appeal and ones which the DRAT is to adjudicate upon. The Writ Court cannot adjudicate upon factual disputes as would be clear from the riva