THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.2609 of 2011 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to AIR(SA) No.1293 of 2010 and to quash the interim order, dated 27.01.2011 passed in I.A.Nos.95 to 97 of 2011 in AIR (SA) No.1293 of 2010, by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, (for short ‘the appellate Tribunal’). 2. The first respondent having availed various loan facilities failed to discharge the same. The petitioner Bank filed O.A.No.247 of 2003 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) for recovery of debt amount and the same is pending. While so, the petitioner invoked the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’) by issuing possession and sale notices proposing to sell the secured asset on 15.02.2008. Challenging the said notices, the first respondent filed S.A.No.44 of 2008 before the Tribunal, which in turn dismissed the same on 26.11.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed AIR(SA) 1293 of 2010 before the appellate Tribunal along with I.A.Nos.95,96 and 97 of 2011 seeking to condone the delay of one day in filing the appeal, to waive the deposit of the amount and to stay all further proceedings, respectively. By the common order impugned, the appellate Tribunal while condoning the delay passed an order restraining the Authorized Officer of the petitioner Bank from in any way proceeding under the provisions of the Act including taking possession of the secured asset till filing the counter in the I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Bank filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 18 of the Act and contended that the appellate Tribunal erred in entertaining the appeal without ordering deposit of fifty percent of the debt amount due by the first respondent as per Section 18 of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal in S.A.No.44 of 2008 has clearly held that the scheduled properties are not agricultural properties. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that in O.A.No.247 of 2003, the petitioner itself mentioned the schedule properties as agricultural dry lands and as such they are exempted under Section 13(4) of the Act and therefore, the Tribunal waived the deposit condition. 6. Section 18 of the Act reads as under: “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 an 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 Debts 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 and rules made thereunder. As per the above said provision, no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower deposits 50% of the amount due and the Appellate Tribunal may reduce the condition of deposit to the extent of 25% depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. From this, it is clear that the appellate Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal without there being such deposit by the first respondent irrespective of the secured asset, agricultural properties or non-agricultural properties. In view of the fact that the appellate Tribunal entertained the appeal contrary to the said provision, we are of the considered view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the appellate Tribunal is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.95 to 97 of 2001 afresh in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, within a period of two weeks from today. However, the auction will be subject to the result of AIR (SA) No.1293 of 2010. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:29.03.2011 Note: Issue CC within two days. (Bo) sj