AUTHORISED OFFICER Vs. GLENNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Dr. Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Praveen K. Joy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

(2.) The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge with regard to the pre-deposit as a condition precedent for preferring an appeal under Sec. 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) in our view is based on a misreading of the provisions of the Act as the Sec. clearly stipulates that in considering the quantum of pre- deposit, the Tribunal shall take into consideration the amount of debt due from the borrower as claimed by the secured creditor or as determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. In the instant case, it was following the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act and some of the secured assets being put up for sale, an appeal was preferred under Sec. 18 of the said Act.

(3.) Although the quantum of debts due from the borrower has not yet been determined, it is difficult at this stage to come to a conclusion that the debt due from the borrower would be either more or less of the amount claimed by the secured creditor. It was for that reason, some relaxation is given to the Tribunal to determine the quantum of deposit to be made based on the claims made by the secured creditor in absence of a date being determined by the Tribunal. Admittedly there has been no adjudication of the debt due from the borrower to the secured creditor by the Tribunal and it has proceeded on the basis of the enforcement of the security interest based on a claim made by the secured creditor, which is roughly over 10 crores.