Kerala High Court
Union Bank Of India vs M/S. Suwique Traders on 26 June, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2025 IN OP(DRT)NO.173 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, III FLOOR, AMALA TOWERS,
ADICHIRA JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686016
2 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE,
III FLOOR, AMALA TOWERS, ADICHIRA JUNCTION,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686016
BY ADVS.
SHRI.ASP.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
SRI.C.P.ANIL RAJ
SHRI.SIVA SURESH
SMT.ATHIRA VIJAYAN
SMT.B.SREEDEVI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. SUWIQUE TRADERS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR YOONUS SALIM AT SUWIQUE
RUBBER DEALER, K.E. ROAD, THOTTUMUKAM, KANJIRAPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
2 YOONUS SALIM,
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 2
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, MANJANATTUPARAMBIL,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
3 FATHIMA YOONUS SALIM,
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. YOONUS SALIM, MANJANATTUPARAMBIL,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686507
OTHER PRESENT:
ASP KURUP, SC, UNION BANK OF INDIA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.06.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 3
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The respondents in O.P.(DRT)No.173 of 2025 are before this
Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section
5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment
of the learned Single Judge dated 16.06.2025 in that original
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the
extent the appellants, namely, the Union Bank of India and its
Authorised Officer, are directed to keep in abeyance further
coercive steps against the respondents-petitioners under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI
Act), till appropriate orders are passed by the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai in Ext.P3 application for stay and
Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-deposit filed in Ext.P2 appeal
challenging Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-2, Ernakulam in S.A.No.404 of 2024.
2. The respondents-petitioners filed S.A.No.404 of 2024
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam, invoking the
provisions under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, challenging
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 4
the demand notice dated 31.01.2024, possession notices dated
11.04.2024 issued by the 2nd appellant Authorised Officer as well
as the sale notice and Section 14 measures initiated by the Bank
against the secured assets in respect of the financial facilities
availed by them from the 1st appellant Bank. The amount
mentioned in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act, was Rs.3,01,59,964.99. The Tribunal by Ext.P1
order dated 17.04.2025 dismissed S.A.No.404 of 2024 with a cost
of Rs.30,000/- to the 1st appellant Bank on a finding that the
applicants, the respondents herein, caused unnecessary delay in
the securitisation proceedings without any valid ground. In Ext.P1
order the Tribunal found that the applicants have raised only
general averments challenging the measures under Section 14 of
the SARFAESI Act. No specific illegality in the securitization
proceedings causing substantial prejudice to the applicants is
raised in the Securitisation Application. As evident from the
endorsement made on Ext.P1 order, a free copy of the same was
delivered to the respondents herein from the office of the Debts
Recovery Tribunal on 22.04.2025.
3. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 of the
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 5
Debts Recovery Tribunal-2, Ernakulam in S.A.No.404 of 2024, the
respondents herein filed Ext.P2 memorandum of appeal under
Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, on 15.05.2025, which is assigned
with Diary No.900 of 2025. The said appeal is accompanied by
Ext.P3 I.A. with Diary No.902 of 2025 filed under Section 18(1),
seeking stay of all further proceedings initiated by the Bank under
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, pursuant to Ext.P1 order
dated 17.04.2025 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, pending
disposal of the appeal; and Ext.P4 I.A. with Diary No.901 of 2025
filed under Section 18(1), seeking an order of complete waiver of
statutory pre-deposit to be made to the Bank of the outstanding
dues and to pass such other suitable order or orders as the
Appellate Tribunal may deem fit, in the facts and circumstances of
the case. The document marked as Ext.P5 is another I.A. with
Diary No.1105 of 2025 filed on 26.05.2025 under Section 18(1),
seeking an order to hear the waiver petition, i.e., Ext.P4 I.A., on
an urgent basis and pass appropriate orders. The document
marked as Ext.P6 is a copy of the notice dated 10.06.2025 issued
by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Chief Judicial
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 6
Magistrate Court, Kottayam, in M.C.No.770 of 2024 demanding
vacant possession of the secured asset. In O.P.(DRT)No.173 of
2025 filed before this Court on 13.06.2025, the respondents
herein sought for the following reliefs;
“(1) Call for the files leading to Ext.P2 appeal
memorandum and to pass order directing the respondent
bank to kept in abeyance of proceedings for
dispossession of the petitioners, until the Ext.P2 Appeal
filed before the DRAT, Chennai get listed and orders
passed in Ext.P3 stay petition;
(2) Issue appropriate orders in original petition or
direction by ordering to direct the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to post Ext.P2 appeal along
with Ext.P3 stay petition before the bench, finalising the
scrutiny of the same, within the time as framed by this
Hon’ble Court.”
4. On 16.06.2025, when O.P.(DRT)No.173 of 2025 came
up for admission, the learned counsel for the respondents herein
submitted that the respondents have already filed Ext.P2 appeal
before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in which
Ext.P3 stay petition and Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-
deposit have been filed. Ext.P5 application has also been filed for
urgent posting. After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Union Bank of
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 7
India for the respondents, the learned Single Judge disposed of
the original petition by the impugned judgment dated 16.06.2025.
Paragraph 3 of that judgment reads thus;
“3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri.R. Ranjit, the learned counsel for respondents
and taking note of the fact that Exts.P3 and P4
applications are pending before the Appellate Tribunal,
there will be a direction to the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai to pass appropriate orders in the
applications referred to above in Ext.P2 appeal preferred
against the final order dated 17.04.2025 in S.A.No.404
of 2024 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam.
Appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law
on Exts.P3 and P4 within a month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed as
directed above, further coercive steps against the
petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.”
(underline supplied)
5. As already noticed hereinbefore, the impugned
judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent the appellants
are directed to keep in abeyance further coercive steps against the
respondents under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, till
appropriate orders are passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai, in Ext.P3 application for stay and Ext.P4
application for waiver of pre-deposit filed in Ext.P2 appeal
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 8
challenging Ext.P1 order dated 17.04.2025 of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-2, Ernakulam in S.A.No.404 of 2024, is under challenge
in this writ appeal.
6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Union Bank of
India for the appellants-respondents and the learned counsel for
the respondents-petitioners.
7. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal
is as to whether the direction contained in the impugned judgment
dated 16.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.(DRT)No.173
of 2025 to the extent the appellants are directed to keep in
abeyance further coercive steps against the respondents under
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, till appropriate orders are
passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in
Ext.P3 application for stay and Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-
deposit filed in Ext.P2 appeal, warrants interference in this writ
appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
8. As already noticed hereinbefore, O.P.(DRT)No.173 of
2025 is one filed by the respondents herein for the reliefs quoted
hereinbefore at paragraph 3, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 9
second relief sought for in the original petition is one seeking
direction against the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, in
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. However, the first relief sought for in the
original petition, i.e., an order directing the 1st appellant Bank to
keep in abeyance the proceedings for dispossession of the
petitioners until Ext.P2 appeal filed before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal get listed and orders passed in Ext.P3 stay
petition, is one invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. In State Bank of India v. M/s. Kinship Services
(India) (P) Ltd. [2013 (4) KHC 21] a Division Bench of this
Court, after taking note of the judgment of the Apex Court in
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sanjay Kerlaker [(2009) 17 SCC
766], held that a writ appeal can be entertained under Section
5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 against the interim order
dated 06.09.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in
O.P.(DRT)No.2931 of 2013, staying confirmation of sale till further
orders in respect of one item of property, which was sought to be
sold in the auction scheduled to be held on 11.09.2013 under
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 10
SARFAESI proceedings, since the nature of the interim relief
granted by the learned Single Judge is nothing but a discretion
exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners
would point out the judgment of this Court dated 29.05.2025 in
W.A.No.1021 of 2025 – P.B. Manaf and others v. Union Bank
of India and others [2025:KER:37622]. In the said writ appeal
filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, this Court
was dealing with a case in which though the writ petition was filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief sought for
was a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 08.01.2025 of the
Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.M.P.No.102 of 2025 in
Crl.R.P.No.3 of 2025. The respondents in that writ petition raised
a contention that such a relief cannot be granted under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement [(2008) 14 SCC
58] the learned Single Judge held that mere description or the
nature of a petition filed does not determine the nature of the
jurisdiction that may be exercised by the High Court. It is well
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 11
within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside an order of any court subordinate
to it, where the High Court is of the opinion that the court
subordinate to it has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it. On
the facts of the case on hand, the learned Single Judge found that
the exercise of the power of revision by the Sessions Court was
not warranted for the reason indicated in the judgment and,
therefore, set aside Ext.P1 order in exercise of the jurisdiction
vested in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. Therefore, in P.B. Manaf [2025:KER:37622], the Division
Bench, after taking note of the law laid down in John V.O. v.
Catholic Syrian Bank and others [2009 (1) KHC 337] held
that the appellants cannot invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this
Court under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, in order to
challenge the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.14656 of 2025.
11. In the case on hand, the first relief sought for in
O.P.(DRT)No.173 of 2025 is an order directing the 1st appellant
Bank to keep in abeyance the proceedings for dispossession of the
petitioners until Ext.P2 appeal filed before the Debts Recovery
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 12
Appellate Tribunal get listed and orders passed on Ext.P3 stay
petition and Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-deposit, which is
one invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The direction contained in the impugned
judgment dated 16.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge, which is
under challenge in this writ appeal, i.e., the direction to the
appellants to keep in abeyance further coercive steps against the
respondents under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, till
appropriate orders are passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai, in Ext.P3 application for stay and Ext.P4
application for waiver of pre-deposit, is one granted by the learned
Single Judge in exercise of the discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. In view of the law laid down by the Division
Bench in M/s. Kinship Services (India) (P) Ltd. [2013 (4)
KHC 21], we find that the challenge made in this writ appeal
against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge to the
extent of granting such a direction against the 1st appellant Bank
is perfectly maintainable in an intra court appeal filed under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
12. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1st appellant Bank
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 13
would point out that Ext.P2 appeal filed before the Debts Recovery
Appellate Tribunal, by the respondents herein, invoking the
provisions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, is accompanied
by Ext.P4 I.A. seeking an order of complete waiver of pre-deposit
to be made to the Bank of the outstanding dues and to pass such
other suitable orders as the Appellate Tribunal may deem fit, in
the facts and circumstances of the case. Such a relief is beyond
the scope of the third proviso to Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI
Act. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge went wrong
in exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India and directing the appellants to keep in abeyance further
coercive steps against the respondents under the provisions of the
SARFAESI Act, till appropriate orders are passed by the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal on Exts.P3 and P4 applications filed in
Ext.P2 appeal.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents is that when Ext.P2 appeal filed before the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section
18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, is accompanied by Ext.P4 application
invoking the third proviso to Section 18(1) for waiver of the pre-
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 14
deposit provided under the second proviso to Section 18(1), the
respondents herein are required to remit only the prescribed fee
as provided under Section 18(1) of the Act, at the time of
preferring an appeal against the order of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal in a Securitisation Application filed under Section 17, and
the question of deposit with the Appellate Tribunal the pre-deposit
provided under the second proviso to Section 18(1) arises only on
an order being passed by the Appellate Tribunal on the application
for waiver.
14. Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, which deals with
appeal to Appellate Tribunal, reads thus;
“18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal.- (1) Any person
aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal under section 17, may prefer an appeal along
with such fee, as may be prescribed to the Appellate
Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the
order of Debts Recovery Tribunal:
Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an
appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the
borrower:
Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless
the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal
fifty per cent of the amount of debt due from him, as
claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 15Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less:
Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the
reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to
not less than twenty-five per cent of debt referred to in
the second proviso.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate
Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in
accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of
1993) and rules made thereunder.”
15. In view of the provisions under Section 18(1) of the
SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved, by an order made by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, may prefer an appeal
along with such fee, as may be prescribed, to the Appellate
Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of
Debts Recovery Tribunal. As per the second proviso to Section
18(1) no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has
deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount
of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or
determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. As
per the third proviso to Section 18(1), the Appellate Tribunal may,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not
less than twenty-five per cent of debt referred to in the second
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 16
proviso.
16. In Narayan Chandra Ghosh v. Uco Bank [(2011) 4
SCC 548] the question that came up for consideration before the
Apex Court was whether the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
has the jurisdiction to exempt a person preferring an appeal under
Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act from making any pre-deposit in
terms of the said provision. After quoting the provisions under
Section 18 of the Act, the Apex Court noticed that Section 18(1)
of the said Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by
any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17
to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right
conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the condition laid down
in the second proviso thereto. The second proviso postulates that
no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited
with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent of the amount of debt due
from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by
the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less. However, under
the third proviso to Section 18(1), the Appellate Tribunal has the
power to reduce the amount, for the reasons to be recorded in
writing, to not less than twenty-five per cent of the debt, referred
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 17
to in the second proviso. Thus, there is an absolute bar to the
entertainment of an appeal under Section 18 of the Act unless the
condition precedent, as stipulated, is fulfilled. Unless the borrower
makes, with the Appellate Tribunal, a pre-deposit of fifty per cent
of the debt due from him or determined, an appeal under the said
provision cannot be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal. The
language of the said proviso is clear and admits of no ambiguity.
17. In Narayan Chandra Ghosh [(2011) 4 SCC 548],
the Apex Court noticed that when a statute confers a right of
appeal, while granting the right, the legislature can impose
conditions for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions
are not so onerous as to amount to unreasonable restrictions,
rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of
the SARFAESI Act, the conditions hedged in the second proviso to
Section 18(1) cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, the Apex Court
held that the requirement of pre-deposit under the second proviso
to Section 18(1) is mandatory and there is no reason whatsoever
for not giving full effect to the provisions contained in Section 18
of the Act. In that view of the matter, no court, much less the
Appellate Tribunal, a creature of the Act itself, can refuse to give
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 18
full effect to the provisions of the statute. Therefore, the Apex
Court concluded that the deposit under the second proviso to
Section 18(1), being a condition precedent for preferring an
appeal under the said section, the Appellate Tribunal had erred in
law in entertaining the appeal without directing the appellant to
comply with the said mandatory requirement.
18. In Narayan Chandra Ghosh [(2011) 4 SCC 548],
before the Apex Court, the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellant was that as the amount of debt due had not been
determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the appeal could be
entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without insisting on pre-
deposit. The Apex Court found the said argument as fallacious.
The Apex Court noticed that, under the second proviso to Section
18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the amount of fifty per cent, which is
required to be deposited by the borrower, is computed either with
reference to the debt due from him as claimed by the secured
creditors or as determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
whichever is less. Obviously, where the amount of debt is yet to
be determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the borrower, while
preferring an appeal, would be liable to deposit fifty per cent of
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 19
the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors.
Therefore, the condition of pre-deposit being mandatory, a
complete waiver of deposit by the appellant, with the Appellate
Tribunal, was beyond the provisions of the Act, as is evident from
the second and third provisos to the Section 18(1). At best, the
Appellate Tribunal could have, after recording the reasons,
reduced the amount of deposit of fifty per cent to an amount not
less than twenty-five per cent of the debt referred to in the second
proviso. Therefore, the Apex Court was convinced that the order
of the Appellate Tribunal, entertaining the appellant’s appeal
without insisting on pre-deposit was clearly unsustainable and,
therefore, the decision of the High Court in setting aside the same
cannot be flawed.
19. In view of the provisions under Section 18(1) of the
SARFAESI Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Narayan Chandra Ghosh [(2011) 4 SCC 548] there is an
absolute bar to the entertainment of an appeal under Section 18
unless the condition precedent, as stipulated in the second proviso
to Section 18(1), is fulfilled. As held by the Apex Court, the
requirement of pre-deposit under the second proviso to Section
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 20
18(1) is mandatory, and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
which is a creature of the statute, cannot refuse to give full effect
to the provisions of Section 18(1). In view of the provisions
contained in the second and third provisos to Section 18(1), a
complete waiver of pre-deposit is beyond the provisions of Section
18(1). In an appeal filed under Section 18, which is accompanied
by an application for waiver of pre-deposit, invoking the provisions
under the third proviso to Section 18(1), the Appellate Tribunal
can, for reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the pre-deposit
to not less than twenty-five per cent of the debt referred to in the
second proviso to Section 18(1).
20. When complete waiver of pre-deposit is beyond the
provisions of Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act, it cannot be
contended that, a person aggrieved by any order made by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, can prefer an appeal
before the Appellate Tribunal, within the time limit specified in
Section 18(1), along with an application for complete waiver of
pre-deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1), after
remitting only the fee provided under Section 18(1), since the
Appellate Tribunal cannot grant complete waiver of pre-deposit,
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 21
which is beyond the scope of the provisions contained in the
second and third provisos to Section 18(1). In that view of the
matter, in an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Act, which is
accompanied by an application invoking the provisions of the third
proviso to Section 18(1) for waiver of pre-deposit, as stipulated in
the second proviso to Section 18(1), the appellant has to deposit
with the Appellate Tribunal twenty-five per cent of the debt
referred to in the second proviso to Section 18(1). The Appellate
Tribunal cannot entertain, i.e., give judicial consideration of an
appeal filed under Section 18 and the interlocutory application
filed under the third proviso to Section 18(1) for waiver of pre-
deposit, as stipulated in the second proviso to Section 18(1),
unless the appellant has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal
twenty-five per cent of the debt referred to in the second proviso
to Section 18(1). Therefore, we find absolutely no merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners
that the respondents are required to remit only the prescribed fee
as provided under Section 18(1) of the Act, at the time of
preferring Ext.P2 appeal and the question of deposit with the
Appellate Tribunal the pre-deposit provided under the second
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 22
proviso to Section 18(1) arises only on an order being passed by
the Appellate Tribunal on the application for waiver.
21. In the case on hand, Ext.P2 appeal filed by the
respondents herein before the Appellate Tribunal, invoking the
provisions under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is accompanied
by Ext.P4 I.A for complete waiver of the pre-deposit to be made
under the second proviso to Section 18(1), which is beyond the
scope of the third proviso to Section 18(1), in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh [(2011) 4
SCC 548]. Therefore, the learned Single Judge went wrong in
directing the 1st appellant Bank, in exercise of the discretion under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to keep in abeyance the
proceedings for the dispossession of the respondents herein until
Ext.P2 appeal filed before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
get listed and orders passed in Ext.P3 application for stay and
Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-deposit.
22. In such circumstances, we find absolutely no grounds
to sustain the direction contained in the impugned judgment dated
16.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in O.P.(DRT)No.173 of
2025, to the extent of interfering with the coercive steps initiated
2025:KER:46809
WA NO. 1514 OF 2025 23
by the 1st appellant Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act, whereby the appellants are directed to keep in abeyance
further coercive steps against the respondents herein under the
provisions of the said Act, till appropriate orders are passed by the
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in Ext.P3 application for stay
and Ext.P4 application for waiver of pre-deposit in Ext.P2 appeal
filed under Section 18.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed as above.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
rkr