A.V. SIDHEEK Vs. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issues in this writ petition is confined to a very narrow compass. The petitioners says that they have filed an appeal, against an order issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Ernakulam, in a Secularization Application (SA) earlier filed by them, before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai. They say that when they moved the said appeal before the DRAT, the said Tribunal, as is statutorily mandated, directed the petitioners to cause a pre-deposit deposit of an amount of Rs. Two Crores, under the provisions of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act ' for short), but that they were unable to comply with the same. They show me Exts.P11 and P12 orders, where under the DRAT directed the petitioner to pay Rupees One Crore on or before 06/12/2018 and another Rupees One Crore within four weeks thereafter. They say that however, since they were unable to pay even the first installment on 06/12/2018, the appeal itself was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioners pray that this court direct the DRAT to restore the Appeal and to further direct it to reduce the pre-deposit to 25% of the demand, as is permissible under the third proviso to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

(2.) Sri. Mohan Jacob George, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent bank submits that the conduct of the petitioners in this writ petition are completely without bonafides and he says that they have earlier approached this court by filing WP(C) Nos. 23338/2018 and 23339/2018, wherein analogous prayers were made and that the said writ petitions are still pending. He says that in the said writ petitions, the petitioners concede that the total amount due is nearly Rupees 6.19 Crores and therefore, that the amount of pre-deposit now ordered by the DRAT, through the impugned orders, cannot be found to be at fault even going by the mandate of the third proviso to Section 18 of the Act. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed, adding that the appeal before the DRAT already stands dismissed for non-compliance of conditions in the impugned orders on 06/12/2018.

(3.) Sri. Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that the submissions made on behalf of the Bank are not accurate and that, in fact, the DRAT has directed the petitioners to pre-deposit Rupees Two Crores taking note of the fact that an amount of Rs.5,69,69,273/- is shown as being due in the Section 32 notice. He says, therefore, that the DRAT was also competent to reduce the said figure to about 1.40 Crores or so, because that would represent 25% of the demand as is required as per proviso 3 to Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. He consequently prays that this court reduce the pre-deposit figure to that amount and direct the DRAT to afford the petitioners at least six months time to deposit the said amount, so as to enable them to have the Appeal heard on merits.