IA-293/2022 in AIR (SA) 198/2022

1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

Dated the 29^th of September, 2022

PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravi Kumar

CHAIRPERSON

IA-293/2022

in

AIR (SA) 198/2022

Between

M/s. Excel,

A Partnership Firm,

Rep. by its Managing Partner,

K. Natarajan,

S.F. No.8/630, Arulpuram,

Palladam Road,

Tirupur 641 605.

……Petitioner/Appellant

And

The Authorised Officer,

Union Bank of India,

Tirupur SME Branch,

No.15, Ganga Nagar, First Street,

Avinashi Road, Tirupur.

…..Respondent

IA-293/2022 in AIR (SA) 198/2022

2

ORDER UNDER SECTION 18 (1) OF SECURITIZATION AND

RECONSTRUCTION

OF

FINANCIAL

ASSETS

AND

ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTERESTS ACT (SARFAESI

ACT), 2002

1. This Application is filed seeking total waiver of pre

deposit required under Section 18(1) of SARFAESI Act, 2002,

for entertaining the Appeal.

2. Appellant preferred this Appeal under Section 18 of

SARFAESI Act, 2002, challenging Order dated 19.05.2022 in

IA 1945/2022 in SA 490/2022 passed by DRT, Coimbatore.

3. According to Affidavit filed in support of Petition,

Petitioner/Appellant is not required to deposit any amount in

view of judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Sree

Jeya Soundharam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Canara Bank

& Ors., reported in 2019 (5) MLJ 385, since Appeal is against

an Interim Order passed by DRT, Coimbatore in SA

490/2022.

IA-293/2022 in AIR (SA) 198/2022

3

4. Heard Learned Advocates of both parties.

5. Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant submitted that, in

view of judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Madras referred to

above, Petitioner/Appellant, who has filed an Appeal before

DRAT against an Interlocutory Order passed by DRT, is not

liable to make pre deposit, as liability is not determined by

DRT in Interlocutory Order. He submitted in view of said

decision, Petitioner/Appellant need not deposit any amount

and Appeal has to be entertained.

6. On the other hand, Advocate for Respondent Bank

submitted that this Tribunal has no power to grant total

waiver, it can only reduce statutory deposit from 50% to 25%.

He further submitted in SARFAESI Act, 2002, there is no

separate provision for passing an Interlocutory Order, and all

Interlocutory Orders are passed under Section 17 of

SARFAESI Act, 2002, and Appeal remedy is provided for all

Orders passed under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. As

IA-293/2022 in AIR (SA) 198/2022

4

per Section 18 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, it makes no

distinction for pre deposit for an Appeal against a Final Order

and for an Appeal against an Interlocutory Order. He further

submitted a Division Bench of Madras High Court in earlier

decision,

held

that

even

for

an

Appeal

against

an

Interlocutory Order, deposit is mandatory. He further

submitted

that

in

the

decision

relied

on

by

Petitioner/Appellant, earlier judgement of Division Bench of

Hon’ble High Court is not referred, therefore a contrary view

taken by equal Bench in a subsequent decision, has to be

ignored under the principle of per incuriam.

After

filing

of

Appeal

before

this

Tribunal,

Petitioner/Appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 19511,

19512 & 19513/2022 seeking a direction to number the

Appeal, and Hon’ble High Court of Madras through a

Common Order dated 28.07.2022 disposed of Writ Petitions

by directing this Tribunal to dispose of Waiver Applications

taking into consideration judgement of Hon’ble High Court of

Madras in Sree Jeya Soundharam Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.,

IA-293/2022 in AIR (SA) 198/2022

5

case, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of

copy of that Order. Advocate for Petitioner/Appellant

produced copy of Hon’ble High Court Order before this

Tribunal on 11.08.2022. Case is listed before Bench on

26.08.2022, as I was on leave on that day, it was reposted to

30.08.2022. On 30.08.2022, arguments commenced, as

requested by bot