ASHA RANI JINDAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the demand notice dated 23.2017 issued by the respondent bank under Section 13(2) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the SARFAESI Act'), orders dated 15.2017 & 16.5.2017 passed by the DRT-I in SA No. 97/2017 filed by them and the orders dated 25.5.2017 and 12.7.2017 passed by the DRAT in Appeal No. 241/2017 filed by the petitioners, which was dismissed for non-deposit of 25% of the amount of debt claimed by the respondent/Bank as a pre-deposit.

(2.) We may note that this is the second round of litigation initiated by the petitioners in the High Court. Prior hereto, aggrieved by the orders dated 11.5.2017 & 16.5.2017 passed by the DRT-I, Delhi in SA No. 97/2017, the petitioners had filed W.P(C) No. 5230/2017. When the said petition was listed before this Court on 11.7.2017, we had enquired from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether they had assailed the impugned orders before the Appellate Authority, namely, the DRAT. Learned counsel for the petitioners had admitted that an appeal had been preferred against the aforesaid orders and vide order dated 25.5.2017, the learned DRAT had directed them to deposit at least 25% of the amount of debt claimed from them by the respondent/Bank.

(3.) In view of the fact that the statutory remedy of an appeal was available to the petitioners which they had invoked by approaching the DRAT, the aforesaid petition was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case for the learned DRAT to take a decision in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the parties had appeared before the learned DRAT on 12.7.2017 on which date, noting the fact that the petitioners had failed to comply with the directions issued on 25.5.2017 by making a pre-deposit of at least 25% of the amount of debt, the said appeal was dismissed by the DRAT.