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.1872 OF 2026 DATE: 10.02.2026 Between:

M/s.Hariom Agencies … Petitioner And Central Bank of India and another ...Respondents Mrs.P.K.Kalyani, learned counsel representing Mr.Gopala Rao Amancharla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Mr.Manav Gecil Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Bank.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The Writ Petition arises out of an order dated 17.12.2025 passed by The Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) at Kolkata in Appl.Dy.No.1000 of 2025 filed by the Writ Petitioner herein (borrower) from an order dated 01.08.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad (DRT) in S.A.No.148 of

2020.

2. By the order dated 01.08.2025, the DRT had dismissed the petitioner’s S.A.No.148 of 2020.

3. By the impugned order dated 17.12.2025, the DRAT directed the petitioner/appellant to pre-deposit the amount i.e., 40% of Rs.8.00 crores within 6 weeks from the date of the impugned order in terms of section 18 of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI’).

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the amount of debt crystallized was Rs.8.00 crores as on 17.12.2025.

5. The petitioner/borrower is aggrieved by the impugned order on the primary reason that the impugned order does not disclose any reason for adjudicating the debt due as Rs.8.00 crores as on 17.12.2025.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- No.1/Bank refers to earlier decree passed by the DRT in favour of the Bank. However, the decree is not on record. Learned counsel also submits that the debt was crystallized to Rs.10.00 crores as of date.

7. Upon perusing the impugned order passed by the DRAT, it is evident that the impugned order fails to disclose any cogent reasons for concluding that the debt due from the petitioner was Rs.8,36,15,441/-. In fact, it is evident from the paragraph No.4 of the impugned order that the amount of Rs.8,36,15,441/- is based on the submissions made on behalf of the Bank. The DRAT failed to examine any documentary evidence to verify the accuracy of the Bank’s assertions regarding the debt calculated as on 17.12.2025. Instead, the DRAT proceeded on the mere assumption that the figure was correct and rounded off the debt to Rs.8.00 crores and directed the petitioner to make the pre-deposit of 50% of the rounded off amount. The DRAT later on reduces 50% to 40% of the debt, but also fails to give the specific amount which is to be deposited by the petitioner.

8. The auction Sale Notice dated 28.10.2020, which was the subject matter of petitioner’s S.A. before the DRT, clearly mentioned the amount of Rs.4,40,99,880/- as due from the petitioner as on 01.08.2019 with interest and costs. The identical amount was also reflected in the Notice dated 01.08.2019 issued by the Bank under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. There is no evidence on record to substantiate the DRAT’s finding of the debt escalated to Rs.8,36,15,441/- as recorded in the impugned order or the reason as to why the DRAT has accepted the oral submission made on behalf of the Bank as to the said amount.

9. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act deals with Appeal to Appellate Tribunal. The second Proviso to section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act mandates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due from the borrower, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the DRT, whichever is less. This Proviso necessitates a formal adjudication of debt based either on the secured creditor’s claim or the DRT’s determination.

10. In the present case, considering the Notice dated 01.08.2019 issued by the Bank to the petitioner under section 13(2)