Kamal Kishore Saspal vs Development Credit Bank Ltd
2018 Latest Caselaw 7184 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    %                                Date of decision: 5th December, 2018

+    W.P.(C) 7747/2018, CM Nos. 51108/2018 & 51109/2018

     KAMAL KISHORE SASPAL
                                                                  ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv.

                            versus

     DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK LTD
                                                                  ..... Respondent
                            Through:      Mr. Hashmat Nabi and
                                          Mr. Farah Naaz, Advs.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

    V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

CM No. 51109/2018 (for exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM No. 51109/2018 (for amendment of the writ petition) This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment

in the writ petition. For the reasons stated in the application the same

is allowed and amended writ petition is taken on record.

Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7747/2018

1. Mr. Hashmat Nabi, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent states he does not wish to file any reply to the amended

writ petition and the matter can be disposed of.

2. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether the

Appellate Tribunal can insist upon pre-deposit of 50% of the

amount of debt claimed from the petitioner by the respondent Bank

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for entertaining the

appeal.

3. Mr. Hashmat Nabi states that even after adjusting the sale

proceeds, there is a shortfall of `2,40,99,109/- as on December 13,

2013. The petitioner has to include the interest component on the

said amount. He further submits that the 50% has paid on the

amount so computed in terms of the above.

4. Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner states that the petitioner is not in a position to make the

pre-deposit. If that be so, in view of the decision of the Supreme

Court in Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others

reported as (2011) 4 SCC 548, wherein the Court has held that the

pre-deposit is a mandatory provision, no relief can be granted.

5. It is clear that the pre-deposit is a mandatory provision,

which cannot be overlooked. In view of the fact that the petitioner

is not in a position to make the pre-deposit, we see no reason to

entertain the writ petition, the same is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 05, 2018/aky