1 wp7496.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7496 OF 2011 Suman Bhuwania ...Petitioner Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai And Another ..Respondents Mr. M. Ramesh for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 21 SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1 Under the Second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) cannot be entertained unless the borrower has deposited 50% of the amount of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the Tribunal whichever is less. Under the third proviso, however, the Appellate Tribunal is empowered for reasons to be recorded in writing to reduce the amount to not less than 25% of the debt referred to in the second proviso. The claim in the notice under section 13(2) was in the amount of 2 wp7496.11.sxw Rs. 4.52 crores. The DRAT has granted the maximum remission that is permissible in law by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 1.3 crores within six weeks from the date of the order. 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner at this stage has no grievance in regard to the order of the DRAT but that the contention of the petitioner is that the Tribunal did not consider the submissions of the Petitioner and no evidence was recorded. On this count, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the proceeding should be remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The submission cannot be entertained by this Court, particularly at the present stage since the petition has been directed against an order on an application for waiver for pre- deposit. Accepting the contention of the petitioner and remanding the proceeding back to the Tribunal would be to virtually bypass the requirement of pre-deposit which Parliament has enacted under Section 18 (1). This cannot be countenanced. Under Article 226 of the Constitution this Court would not pass an order contrary to the provisions of the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18. In that view of the matter, we do not consider it fit and proper to exercise our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since there is no error in the order of the DRAT. 3 wp7496.11.sxw 2. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)