Whether the condition of making pre-deposit in terms of the second proviso to Section 18 (1) of SARFAESI Act 2002 is mandatory even for entertaining an appeal against an order passed by the DRT on an interlocutory application which does not have the effect of staying the action or measures taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) – M/s. Satnam Agri Products Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. – Delhi High Court
Whether the condition of making pre-deposit in terms of the second proviso to Section 18 (1) of Securitisation Act, is mandatory even for entertaining an appeal against an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal on an interlocutory application which does not have the effect of staying the action or measures taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security interest under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. The petitioners seek to draw a distinction between the appeals preferred against a final order passed by the DRT under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act and the appeal against the order on an interlocutory application which does not have the effect of staying the measures taken by the secured creditor under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act for enforcement of security interest.
The Court held that DRT does not have any power to issue any direction to the creditor bank to consider the rehabilitation or settlement proposal, if any submitted by the borrower.
