K.SENTHILNATHAN Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only prayer made in this Civil Revision Petition is that the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, has erred in directing the pre-deposit in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, even though the impugned order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I was only on the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners / borrowers for setting aside the exparte order passed against them.

(2.) The controversy involved in the present case is no longer res integra and is covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court MARDIA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [2004 (4) SCC 311] and SREE JEYA SOUNDHARAM TEXTILE MILLS PVT. LTD VS. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS [CRP (NPD) NO.1492 OF 2017, DECIDED ON 11.04.2019] which has been followed by this Bench in the case of M/S.ASHOK WOOD WORKS AND ANOTHER VS. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK (W.P.NO.22981 OF 2019 DECIDED ON 30.09.2019) wherein it is held that no pre-deposit was required to be made by the Petitioner, being neither the Borrower nor the Guarantor but, being a third party to the proceedings viz., the auction purchaser and therefore, appeal against the order passed on the Interlocutory Application filed by the Petitioner before the DRAT does not require any pre-deposit, as per aforesaid judgments.

(3.) We reiterate below the ratio of the two judgments rendered by the Division Bench and this Bench:- In the case of Sree Jeya Soundharam Textile Mills