I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

Civil Writ Petition No.24604 of 2013 (O&M)

DATE OF DECI SI ON: 12.11.2013

Smt. Bhago Devi

…..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE AUGUSTI NE GEORGE MASI H

Present:

Mr.S.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner

..

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE: (Oral)

The petitioner seeks to assail the order passed by DRAT qua

the requirement of pre-deposit passed on 28.6.2013 in the following

terms: -

“ Heard

Mr.

Bansal

on

application

(I.A.

No.466/ 2013) seeking exemption from depositing 50%

of the amount claimed by the secured creditor for the

entertainment of the appeal. He points out that as per

the demand notice dated 19.4.2010, issued under

section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, an amount of

Rs.51,56,066.76 was claimed. He further points out

that subsequent to the issuance of the said notice, an

amount of Rs.16 lacs was deposited in the loan

account as has been stated on the basis of the

statement of account by the Tribunal below in the

order impugned. He submits that the appellant is

ready to deposit Rs.2 lacs through D.D. by today

itself and undertakes to deposit Rs.8 lacs by

8.7.2013 to make the total deposit as 50% of the

amount claimed. Let the amount be deposited with

the Registrar of this Tribunal as stated by the

applicant. Application stands disposed of.”

It is obvious to us from a reading of the aforesaid order that

it is the own submission of the counsel for the petitioner which was

Chand Parkash

2013.11.13 12:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CW P-24604-2013

- 2 -

accepted by Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner can, thus, hardly have a

cause to assail the sam e.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offer was

made by the counsel and not by the petitioner herself. This is a plea only

to be stated to be rejected for the reason that it is not the case of the

petitioner before the DRAT that any offer was m ade by the counsel

without her authorisation and that too as a condition of pre-deposit.

The petition is misconceived and is dismissed.

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL )

CHI EF JUSTI CE

12.11.2013

( AUGUSTI NE GEORGE MASI H)

parkash*

JUDGE

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that

he m ay be given som e extension of time to deposit the amount.

In our view, such a request ought to be m ade before the

DRAT.

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL )

CHI EF JUSTI CE

12.11.2013

( AUGUSTI NE GEORGE MASI H)

parkash*

JUDGE

Chand Parkash

2013.11.13 12:29

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document