JIFFY REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK on 14 October 2026

**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**

**Order Reserved: 07.07.2026** **Order Pronounced: 14.10.2026**

**Misc. Appeal No.124/2026** **(Arising out of order dated 08.05.2026 passed in S.A. No.32/2023, DRT-III, Delhi)**

**Jiffy Realtors Private Limited**

Registered Office: B-165, Flat no.D Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st Floor, Masjid Moth South Extension Part-II, New Delhi – 110 049 EMAIL ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

**...Appellant**

**V**

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2, Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@eragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Stickit Buildtech Private**

155, S/ F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com Phone : 9650061982

**...Respondents**

**&** **Misc. Appeal No.123/2026** **(Arising out of order dated 08.05.2026 passed in S.A. No.34/2023,** **DRT-III, Delhi)**

**Demas Developers Private Limited**

Registered Office : B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

...Applicant

**V**

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@cragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, MalviyaNagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Stickit Buildtech Private**

155, S/ F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com Phone : 9650061982

---

...Respondents

&

Misc. Appeal No.122/2026 (Arising out of order dated 08.05.2026 passed in S.A. No.33/2023, DRT-III, Delhi)

**Alvita Realtors Private Limited**

Registered Office : B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

V

...Applicant

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@cragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Stickit Buildtech Private**

155, S/ F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com

Phone : 9650061982

...Respondents

&

**Misc. Appeal No.147/2026** **(Arising out of order dated 08.05.2026 passed in TSA No.09/2023,** **DRT-III, Delhi)**

**Dev Rishabh Real Estate Private Limited**

Registered Office: B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

...Applicant

V

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@cragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Demas Developers Private Limited**

Registered Office at: B-165, Flat No.D,

---

Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096 Email: gurgaonland1@gmail.com

(Respondent no.4 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)

**5. Alvita Realtors Private Limited**

B-165, Flat No. D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096 Email: gurgaonland1@gmail.com

(Respondent no.5 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)

**6. Jiffy Realtors Private Limited**

Registered Office at: B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi – 110096 Email: gurgaonland1@gmail.com

(Respondent no.6 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)

**7. Kiaan Propmarts Private Limited**

155, S/F, Ram Nagar, Sahadara, New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com

...Respondents

&

**Misc. Appeal No.120/2026** **(Arising out of order dated 28.04.2026 passed in S.A. No.32/2023,** **DRT-III, Delhi)**

**Jiffy Realtors Private Limited**

Registered Office: B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

...Applicant

V

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008

Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@eragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Stickit Buildtech Private**

155, S/ F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com Phone: 9650061982

**...Respondents**

**&**

**Misc. Appeal No.151/2026**

**(Arising out of order dated 28.04.2026 passed in TSA No.09/2023, DRT-III, Delhi)**

**Dev Rishabh real Estate Private Limited**

Registered Office B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

**...Applicant**

**V**

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

---

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited** Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@eragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana** C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Demas Developers Private Limited** Registered Office: B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096 Email ID: gurgaonland1@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.4 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**5. Alvita Realtors Private Limited** Registered Office: B-165, Flat No. D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096 Email ID: gurgaonland1@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.5 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**6. Jiffy Developers Private Limited** Registered Office: B-165, Flat No. D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096 Email ID: gurgaonland1@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.6 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**7. Kiaan Propmarts Private Limited** 155, S/ F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com

---

Phone: 9650061982

...Respondents

&

**Misc. Appeal No.148/2026** (Arising out of order dated 28.04.2026 passed in S.A. No.33/2023, DRT-III, Delhi)

**Alvita Realtors Private Limited**

Registered Office: B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

...Applicant

V

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@eragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Stickit Buildtech Private**

155, S/F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, New Delhi – 110051

---

Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com Phone: 9650061982

...Respondents

&

**Misc. Appeal No.121/2026** **(Arising out of order dated 28.04.2026 passed in S.A. No.34/2023,** **DRT-III, Delhi)**

**Demas Developers Private Limited**

Registered Office: B-165, Flat No.D, Ground Floor, New Ashok Nagar New Delhi – 110096

**Also at:**

Corporate Office: 130, 1^st floor, Masjid Modh, South Extension Part II, New Delhi – 110049 Email ID – cs.mca2013@gmail.com

...Applicant

V

**1. Indian Overseas Bank**

Through its Purported Authorized Officer Nehru Place Branch, 14-15, Farm Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.

**Also at:**

2 Rajendra Place 4^th Floor, Rachna Building, Pusa Road, New Delhi-110008 Email id: iob1997@iob.in

**2. Era Infra Engineering Limited**

Through resolution Professional Office:-370-371/ Sahi Hospital Road, Jungpura, Bhogal, New Delhi-110014

**Also at:**

B-292, Chandra Kanta Complex, Shop No.2 & 3, Near Metro Pillar No.161, New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi-110096. Email ID – cs.mca@eragroup.in

**(Respondent no.2 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**3. Hem Singh Bharana**

C-146, First Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave, Malviya Nagar, Delhi – 110 017 Email ID – hsbharana1962@gmail.com

**(Respondent no.3 is deleted as per the Order dated 01.06.2026)**

**4. Stickit Buildtech Private**

155, S/ F, Ram Nagar, Shahdara,

---

New Delhi – 110051 Email: batraabhishek96@gmail.com Phone : 9650061982

...Respondents

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudir Kumar Jain, Chairperson For Appellants : Sh. Sidharth Yadav, Senior Advocate along with Sh. Pallav Saxena, Ms Saloni Singh, Sh. Anuj K Maheshwari and Sh. Rudra Chauhan, Advocates For respondent no.1 : Sh. Ujjwal Kumar along with Sh. Dharmendra, Sh. Abhinav Kumar Srivastava and Sh. Sunny Choudhary, Advocates For respondent no.4 : Sh. Anil K. Airi, Senior Advocate along with Sh. Abhishek Batra, and Sh. Vishnu Anand, Advocates Order in I.A No. 737/2026 in Appeal No. 124/2026, I.A No. 727/2026 in Appeal No. 120/2026, I.A No. 781/2026 in Appeal No. 147/2026, I.A No. 780 in Appeal No. 151/2026, I.A No. 732/2026 in Appeal No. 122/2026, I.A No. 776/2026 in Appeal No. 148/2026, I.A No. 734/2026 in Appeal No. 121/ 2026, I.A No. 725 in Appeal No. 123/2026

1. The appellant M/s Jiffy Realtors Private Limited in Miscellaneous Appeals No. 124/2026 and in 120/2026, the appellant M/s Dev Rishab Estate Private Limited in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 147/2026 and in 151/2026, the appellant M/s Alvita Realtors Private Limited in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 148/2026 and 122/2026 and the appellant M/s Demas Developers Private Limited in Miscellaneous Appeal 121/2026 and 123/2026 had filed Securitisation Applications (S.A) bearing no. SA/32/2023 titled as **M/s Jiffy Realtors Private Limited V Indian Overseas Bank& others**, TSA/09/2023 titled as **M/s Dev Rishab Estate Private Limited V Indian Overseas Bank& others**, SA/33/2023 titled as **M/s Alvita Realtors Private Limited V Indian Overseas Bank& others**, and SA/34/2023 titled as **M/s Demas Developers Private Limited V Indian Overseas Bank & others** before DRT- III Delhi (hereinafter referred to as '**DRT**'). The appellants aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2026 and 08.05.2026 (herein after referred to as '**the impugned orders**') have filed the respective appeals stated hereinabove.

2. The appellants along with the appeals have also filed applications bearing I.A no. 737/2026 & I.A. 727/2026, I.A 781/2026 & I.A 780/2026, I.A 776/2026 & I.A 732/2026, I.A 734/2026 & I.A 725/2026 for waiver of pre deposit as required

--- under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as '**the Act**') for the entertainment of the appeals and these applications are under consideration.

3. The appellants pleaded that the respondent no.1 had granted a Term Loan facility of Rs. 150 crores to the Era Infra Engineering Limited i.e. the respondent no 2 (hereinafter referred to as '**the borrower**') in all appeals to meet its long-term working capital requirements and for general corporate purposes vide sanction letter dated 15.11.2012. The appellants mortgaged the subject properties, the details of which are given SA, to secure the loan amount. The borrower has allegedly failed to adhere to the financial discipline and as a result of which the loan account was declared as NPA by the respondent no.1/Indian Overseas Bank. The respondent no.1 thereafter issued a notice dated 13.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act to the borrower and to the appellants being mortgagers demanding a sum of Rs. 149,83,93,853/- which was alleged to have been issued in violation of various provisions of the Act and Section 31(1) of the Act. The respondent no.1 put the mortgaged properties to sale/auction vide notice dated 26.09.2023 proposing the auction on 13.10.2023. The appellants filed interim application bearing No. I.A No. 63/2026, 60/2026, 62/2026, and 61/2026 for seeking direction to the respondent No.1 for disclosure and production of certain documents pertaining to the auction proceedings. DRT vide order dated 28.04.2026 dismissed these applications. The appellants being aggrieved filed the appeals bearing No. 120/2026, 151/2026, 148/2026, 121/2026.

3.1 The appellants also filed applications bearing I.A No. 154/2026, 156/2026, 155/2026, 157/2026 for seeking permission to place on record additional documents in the S.A and these applications were dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2026.

4. The appellants being aggrieved filed the above detailed appeals along with an applications bearing I.A No. 737/2026, 727/2026, 781/2026, 780/2026, 776/2026, 732/2026, 734/2026, 725/2026 for waiver of pre-deposit as provided under section 18 of the act.

5. The appellants in the applications filed in the appeals to impugn the order dated 28.04.2026 for waiver of the pre deposit alleged that the DRT did not properly consider submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and passed the

--- impugned order dated 28.04.2026 contrary to the principles of law and natural justice. DRT has erred on law and facts while passing the impugned order dated 28.04.2026 and documents showed to be produced were relevant and necessary for the effective adjudication of S.A. The appellants were denied access to material and foundational documents necessary to substantiate its challenge to the auction proceedings. The impugned order is procedural in nature and did not relate to recovery of debts and also did not adjudicate upon any liability under section 17 of the Act. The mandate of pre-deposit as per proviso to section 18 of the Act is not attracted as in the present appeals the appellant only challenged the legality of the interlocutory orders. It was prayed that the appellants be exempted from making the pre-deposit.

5.1 The appellants in the applications filed to impugn the order dated 08.05.2026 alleged that the impugned order dated 08.05.2026 was passed without appreciating importance/ relevance of the documents which were having direct bearing upon the liability of the appellants as per the notices issued by the respondent no.1 under the Act. The letter dated 30.10.2025 procured from the new management of the borrower is of significant importance and the impugned order has suffered from fundamental errors. The impugned order is interlocutory in nature which does not arise from determination or recovery of debt and has not adjudicated upon any liability under section 17 of the Act. The mandate of pre-deposit under the proviso to section 18 of the Act does not attract as the present appeal is filed only to challenge the legality of interlocutory order. It is prayed that the requirement of making the pre-deposit be waived in the interest of justice, equity and fair adjudication.

6. The respondent no. 1 in the reply stated that the complete waiver of pre-deposit is misconceived and contrary to the mandate of Section 18 of the Act. The appellant by labelling the Impugned order as "purely procedural or interlocutory," cannot bypass a mandatory statutory threshold designed to prevent dilatory litigation tactics. The respondent no. 4 being the auction purchaser also filed reply to the above applications wherein the preliminary objection stated that the applications are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The appellants not only challenging the demand notice and possession notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, but also sale notice and sale certificate being the mortgagors/ guarantors of the loan. The appellants are liable to make pre-deposit of

---

50% of the amount of Rs. 312,45,02,617/- as on 31.08.2023. The appellants also played fraud on the concerned parties by entering into a Developer Agreement dated 08.02.2023 with Riverday Infrastructure Private Limited. The respondent No. 4 also referred **SidhaNeelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited V Prudent ARC Limited & Others**, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 12. The resolution plan in no manner intends to hinder the obligations of guarantors and any securities provided by the third parties including the debt of borrower. The respondent no. 4 on merit also denied other contentions of the appellants.

7. The appellants filed rejoinder to the reply of the respondent no.1 wherein reasserted the facts as stated in the applications.

8. Sh. Sidharth Yadav, Senior advocate along with Sh. PallavSaxena, Ms. Saloni Singh, Sh. Anuj K Maheshwari and Sh. Rudra Chauhan Advocates for appellant, Sh. Ujjwal Kumar and Sh. Dharmendra, Sh. Abhinav Kumar Srivastava and Sh. Sunny Choudhary, Advocates for respondent No. 1 and Sh. Anil Kumar Airi, Senior Advocate along with Sh. Abhishek Batra and Sh. Vishnu Anand advocates for respondent No. 4 advanced arguments which were considered. The relevant records are also perused. The written submissions submitted on behalf of the contesting parties are also perused and considered.

9. The Senior Counsel for the appellants primarily argued that the aforesaid appeals are preferred against the impugned orders which are interlocutory and procedural in natureconfining to the admission of a relevant document and not against a final order determining any substantive rights of the parties in relation to the debt or the enforcement measure under the Act. The Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **M/s Sunshine Builders and Developers V HDFC Bank Limited**, Civil Appeal No. 5290/2025, wherein the Supreme Court drew a distinction between substantive adjudication affecting enforcement measures and mere procedural or interlocutory orders, holding that the rigour of mandatory pre-deposit ought not to be mechanically invoked where an appeal merely assails a procedural order without seeking adjudication on the debt itself. The Learned Senior Counsel also referred the judgement delivered by the Bombay High Court in **M/s Sunshine Builders V HDFC Bank**, Writ Petition No. 3929 of 2024 and argued that the said judgement has no application in the present appeals as the borrower had consciously delayed challenge to the SAREESI measures despite having full knowledgeand allowing

--- third-party rights to crystallise in favour of the auction purchaser. The Bombay High Court had specifically recorded findings of waiver, abandonment and unexplained delay over a substantial period and these factors are not available in the captioned appeals. The Learned Senior Counsel further forcefully argued that the Impugned Orders merely dismissed Interim Applications seeking relief as detailed herein above. The Senior Counsel also referred **Bhavnagar University V Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111.**

9.1 The Senior Counsel for the appellants further argued that no pre-deposit amount can be claimed without a final decision on the debt due. The Appellants are merely guarantors and in the insolvency proceedings against the borrower the claim has been duly considered, adjudicated and restructured and thereafter the respondent no. 1 has already issued no-dues certificate. The account pertaining to the principal borrower has already been regularised and now is not classified as NPA and accordingly no pre-deposit can be claimed. There is no debt which can be stated to be due against the borrower. It is further argued that the borrower and the respondent no. 1 on 29.03.2014 pursuant to the approved Corporate Debt Restructuring Package enter into a Master Restructuring Agreement without the consent and participation of appellant which does amount to novation of earlier contractual arrangement and consequent discharge and release of the appellants from earlier liability towards the respondent no.1. In the last it was argued that the pre-deposit as per section 18 of the Act is mandatory only for the borrower and not for the guarantor who has already been discharged. The Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the respondent no. 1 had submitted a claim of Rs. 1,516.65 crores in the insolvency proceedings of the Borrower which was adjudicated and restructured, and thereafter the respondent no. 1 issued a No-Dues Certificate and regularised the account. The Learned Senior Counsel also relied upon various judgements delivered by superior courts as detailed in the written submissions which were duly considered.

10. Sh. Ujjwal Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no. 1 after referring relevant factual position and legal provisions stated that the appellants are the guarantors in respect of loan accounts and the respondent no 1 has already taken necessary legal action under Act after loan accounts were declared as NPA. The appellants being the guarantors are equally liable with the borrower. The pre-deposit is condition precedent for entertaining any appeal under Act. It was also argued that even in

--- case of miscellaneous appeal, the proviso to section 18 needs to be complied with and plea of the appellants for complete waiver is misconceived and without any merit. The counsels for the respondent no 1 also cited various judgments in support of arguments. It was ultimately argued that the appellants are liable to make pre-deposit.

11. Sh. Anil K. Airi, Senior Advocate along with Sh. Abhishek Batra, and Sh. Vishnu Anand, Advocates for the respondent no4/auction purchaser argued that the appellants have to deposit 50% of the amount as claimed by the respondent no. 1 along with interest even in case of miscellaneous appeals. The senior counsel referred the section 18 of the Act and further argued that the Section 21 of the RDB Act also mandated the deposition of 50% of the amount due as determined by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the RDB Act and placed reliance on decision delivered by High Court of Delhi in **Satnam Agri Products Ltd. and others V Union of India and others**, (2015) 147 DRJ 617 wherein the mandate of pre-deposit under the proviso of section 18 of the Act even in cases of appeal made against interlocutory order was upheld. The senior counsel for the respondent no. 4/auction purchasers also relied on the decision delivered by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5290/2025 titled as **Sunshine Builders and Developers V HDFC Bank Limited** and remanded issue for consideration to the High Court of Bombay. Thereafter the High Court of Bombay in **Sunshine Builders and Developers V HDFC Bank Limited**, 2026 SCC Online Bom 823 observed that the requirement of the pre-deposit has been made applicable to all appeals irrespective of the challenge and further observed that the words "any order" found in sub section (1) of section 17 is difficult to restrict its applicability only to the final order which determines the liability of the borrower or other persons. The Supreme Court upheld the decision delivered by the Bombay High Court vide judgment dated 20.03.2026 passed in SLP(c)No. 9823 of 2026 titled as **Sunshine Builders and Developers V HDFC Bank Limited**.

11.1 The senior counsel further argued that the appellants are claiming complete waiver of the pre-deposit but pre-deposit is a condition precedent for entertaining and trying the appeal and said contention of the appellant is contrary to the accepted position of law as held by the Supreme Court in **SidhaNeelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. V Prudent ARC Limited and Others**, 2023 SCC Online 12. The appellants are not even entitled for any reduction of pre deposit to 25% on the

--- account of alleged severe financial hardship as the appellants have played fraud upon all the parties involved by entering into Developer Agreement dated 08.02.2023 with River day Infrastructure Private Limited for development of the land which subsumes the subject land for Rs. 240.45 crores out which Rs. 8.75 crores stood received by the land owners including the appellants. It was further vehemently argued that no appeal can be entertained without compliance of the mandatory provisions of pre-deposit and to support this argument various judgments were cited.

**11.2** The senior counsel for respondent no. 4/auction purchasers further argued that the implementation of the resolution plan has no bearing affect on the liability of the appellants as the liability of the Appellants being the guarantor and mortgagor is joint, several and co-extensive with that of the principal borrower and as such the measures undertaken can be proceeded against the appellants even if a resolution plan qua the borrower has already been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal as evident from the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by National Company Law Tribunal in C.P.(IB) No. 190 of 2017 and various judgements delivered by the superior courts were referred which are detailed in written submissions.

**12.** It is pertinent to discuss the relevant legal proposition and the law laid down by the superior courts before addressing the factual and legal controversies between the parties. Section 18 of the Act deals with appeals to Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (1) provides that any person aggrieved by any order made by DRT under Section 17 may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the DRT. The proviso clause provides that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal 50% of the amount of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditor or determined by the DRT, whichever is less. It also provides that the Appellate Tribunal may for the reasons to be recorded in writing reduce the amount to not less than 25% of the debt. Section 2(f) of the Act defines borrower which means any person who has been granted financial assistance by any bank or financial institution or who has given any guarantee or created any mortgage or pledge as security for the financial assistance granted by bank or financial institution. Section 2(ha) defines the debt as per definition given in clause 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. It provides that debt means any liability

--- inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person by a bank or financial institution etc. Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act reads as under:-

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 alongwith 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 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.

12.1 The Supreme Court in *Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited* in respect of mandatory condition of pre-deposit observed as under:-

13. As per section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act, "debt" shall have the same meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of section 2 of the Act 1993. As per section 2(g) of the Act 1993, "debt" means any liability inclusive of interest which is claimed as due from any person..., by a bank or a financial institution during the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or the financial institution, in cash or otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or assigned, or whether payable under a decree or order of any civil court or any arbitration award or otherwise or under a mortgage and subsisting on and legally recoverable on the date of the application. That the "debt" means any liability inclusive of interest.

As per section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, any person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 may prefer an appeal within thirty days to an Appellate Tribunal (Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal) from the date of receipt of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Second proviso to section 18 provides 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 and only and only then, an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act is permissible against the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Under section 17, the scope of enquiry is limited to the steps taken under section 13(4) against the secured assets. Therefore, whatever amount is mentioned in the notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, in case steps taken under section 13(2) and (4) against the secured assets are under challenge before the Debts Recovery Tribunal will be the "debt due" within the meaning of proviso to section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. In case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate will have to be considered while determining the amount of pre-deposit under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. However, in a case where both are under challenge, namely, steps taken under section 13(4) against the secured assets and also the auction sale of the secured assets, in that case, the "debt due" shall mean any liability (inclusive of interest) which is claimed as due from any person, whichever is higher.

12.2 The Supreme Court in **Kotak Mahindra Bank Pvt. Ltd. V Ambuj A Kasliwal and others**, Civil Appeal No.538/2021, decided on 16.02.2021, has observed that even the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion, which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provisions. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances arising herein, when further amount is due and payable in discharge of decree/recovery certificate issued by the DRT in favour of the appellant / Bank, the High Court does not have the power to waive the pre-deposit in its entirety, nor can it exercise discretion which is against the mandatory requirement of the statutory provision as contained in Section 21, which is extracted above. In all cases fifty per cent of the decretal amount i.e. the debt due is to be deposited before the DRAT as a mandatory requirement, but in appropriate cases for reasons to be recorded the deposit of at least twenty-five per cent of the debt due would be permissible, but not entire waiver. Therefore, any waiver of pre-deposit to the entire extent would be against the statutory provisions and, therefore, not sustainable in law. The order of the High Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

15. It is noticed that this Court while considering an analogous provision contained in Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI for short) relating to pre-de Narayan Chandra Ghosh vs. UCO Bank and Others (2011) 4 SCC 548, which reads as under:-

7. Section 18(1) of the Act confers a statutory right on a person aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. However, the right conferred under Section 18(1) is subject to the conditions laid down in the second proviso thereto. The second provision postulates that no appeal shall be entertained unless then 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, whoever is less. However, under the third proviso to the subsection, 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 to in the second proviso. Thus, there is an absolute bar to 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 no ambiguity.

8. It is well settled that when a Statute confers a right of appeal, while granting the right, the Legislature can impose condition for the exercise of such right, so long as the conditions are not so onerous as to what to unreasonable restrictions, rendering the right almost illusory. Bearing in mind the object of the Act, the conditions hedged in the said proviso cannot be said to be onerous. Thus, we hold that the requirement of pre-deposit under subsection (1) of Section 18 of the Act 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 full effect to the provisions of the Statute. We have no hesitation in holding that deposit under the second proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act 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.

9. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant that as the amount of debt due had not been determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, appeal could be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal without insisting on pre-deposit, is equally fallacious. Under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the 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 appeal, would be liable to deposit fifty per cent of the debt due from him as claimed by the secured creditors. Therefore, the condition of pre-deposit being mandatory, a complete waiver of pre-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 said Section. 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. We are convinced that the order of the Appellate Tribunal, entertaining 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.

13. It is reflecting from the record that the borrower approached the respondent no. 1 in and around November 2012 for grant of Term Loan facility of 150 crores for strengthening networking capital and to overcome liquidity mismatch faced by the borrower. The respondent no. 1 vide sanction letter dated 15.11.2012 sanction the loan facility to the borrower. The appellants being the guarantors have mortgaged subject lands to the respondent no. 1 as security for the repayment of loan.

13.1. The respondent no.1 also issued the demand notice dated 13.04.2023 for payment of Rs.149,83,93,853/- as outstanding dues. The respondent no.1 also issued sale notice dated 10.07.2023 wherein the respondent no.1 has claimed Rs. 259,22,22,899/- crores as outstanding amount. The respondent no.1 in subsequent sale notice dated 26.09.2023 has claimed Rs. 312,45,02,617/- as outstanding dues.

14. The issue which needs consideration is that whether the appellants are entitled to waiver of the pre-deposit as claimed in the applications under disposal and also argued by the senior counsel for the appellants or whether the appellants are liable to make pre-deposit on amount of Rs. 149,83,93,853/- as claimed in the notice

--- under Section 13(2) of the Act, dated 13.04.2023 or appellants as per the arguments advanced on behalf of the contesting respondents are liable to make pre-deposit on amount of Rs.312,45,02,617/- as outstanding dues as on 31.08.2023 and also mentioned in the subsequent sale notice dated 26.09.2023. The legal proposition as laid down in **SidhaNeelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited V Prudent ARC Limited & others** the amount whatever is mentioned in the notice under section 13(2) of the Act will be the "debt due" within the meaning of proviso to section 18 of the Act and it was further laid down that in case of challenge to the sale of the secured assets, the amount mentioned in the sale certificate has to be considered for determining the amount of pre-deposit under section 18 of the Act. The appellants in the present Securitisation Applications have also prayed for quashing of sale notice dated 26.09.2023 besides quashing of demand notice dated 13.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act, possession notice dated 30.06.2023 under Section 13(4) of the Act.

15. The arguments oral and written advanced and submitted by the contesting parties along with case law are perused and considered in the right perspective. The senior counsel for the appellants primarily contended and argued that the present appeals are preferred against the interlocutory and procedural orders and not against a final order determining any substantive rights of the parties in relation to the debt or the enforcement measure under the Act. However, said arguments advanced by the senior counsel for the appellants are without any legal force particularly in view of the legal proposition and also affirmed by the various judgement delivered by the superior court and also cited on behalf of the contesting respondent that making a pre-deposit is mandatory even for entertaining an appeal against an Interlocutory order. The arguments as advanced by the senior counsel for the appellants that no pre-deposit can be claimed without a final decision on the debt due is misconceived and cannot be accepted. There is a force in the arguments advanced by respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 4 that the appellants are liable to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit even in case of miscellaneous appeal.

15.1 It was also contended on behalf of the appellants and as also argued by the Senior Counsel for the appellants that the appellants were merely guarantors and in the insolvency proceedings against the borrower the claim has been duly considered, adjudicated and restructured and thereafter the respondent no. 1 has

---

already issued no-dues certificate. It was also contended that due amount/account against the borrower has already been regularised and at present loan account of the borrower is not classified as NPA and as such the appellants are not required to make pre-deposit. The senior Counsel for respondent no. 4 to controvert the said arguments stated and argued that the mere implementation of the resolution plan has no bearing affect on the appellant. It is correct that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the borrower after loan account of the borrower was declared NPA on 01.07.2015 vide Company Petition bearing no. CP (IB) 190/2017 under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 and the NCLT, Delhi vide order dated 08.05.2018 allowed the application under Section 7 for initiation of Corporate Insolvency Process of the borrower and thereafter the Resolution Plan of the borrower was approved by Committee of Creditors (COC) on 25.01.2023 and the claim of the respondent no.1 was also dealt with as per the Resolution Plan. The respondent no. 1 has already issued no-due certificate in favour of the borrower. The Supreme Court in case of **Lalit Kumar Jain V Union of India and others**, (2021) 9SCC 321 and also cited by the respondent no. 4/auction purchasers held that the sanction of a Resolution Plan and finality imparted to it does not *per se* operate as a discharge as a liability of a guarantor. The Delhi High Court subsequent to this judgement in **Sanjay Sarin V Authorized Officer, Canara Bank and others**, (2022) 29DLT 641 also held that the discharge of a corporate debtor from a debt on by corporate debtor to its creditors by way of insolvency proceedings does not absolve the guarantor of its liability as it has been arisen out of an independent contract. Accordingly, the passing of Resolution Plan in favour of the borrower does not *ipso facto* discharge the personal guarantor. In the present case the appellants stood as guarantors to the loan sanctioned in favour of the borrowers and mere fact that the liability of the borrower is already settled through the Resolution Plan as detailed herein above then the liability of the appellants being the guarantor would not extinguished. There is no legal force in the arguments advanced by the Senior Counsel for the appellants that the financial liability of the appellants has come to an end due to the Resolution Plan approved in favour of the borrower and there is no debt which can be stated to be due against the borrower. The Senior Counsels for the respondents rightly argued that the implementation of the Resolution Plan in favour of the borrower does not have any bearing affect on the appellants being the guarantor. There is also no force in the argument advanced by the Senior Counsel for the appellants that the borrower and the respondent no. 1 on 29.03.2014 pursuant to the approved Corporate Debt Restructuring Package enter into a Master Restructuring Agreement without the consent and participation of appellants which does amount to novation of earlier contractual arrangement and consequent discharge and release of the appellants from earlier liability towards the respondent no.1. As discussed herein above that mere discharge of corporate debtor from its debt by way of insolvency proceedings does not absolve a guarantor from its liability which is result of independent and separate contract/agreement between the financial institution i.e. the respondent no. 1 and the guarantor i.e. the appellants.

16. The arguments oral and written advanced and submitted on behalf of the contesting parties are considered appropriately along with case law. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants are without any legal force and cannot be accepted. The appellants as per the legal proposition laid down in **Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Private Limited V Prudent ARC Limited & others** are liable to make pre-deposit on the amount of Rs.312,45,02,617/- as claimed in subsequent sale notice dated 26.09.2023 particularly due to the reasons that the appellant in the present SAs has also challenged and prayed for quashing of sale notice dated 26.09.2023 besides quashing of demand notice dated 13.04.2023 under Section 13(2) of the Act and possession notice dated 30.06.2023 under Section 13(4) of the Act. The sale notices were issued immediately after issuance of notice under section 13 (2) of the Act and without any unnecessary delay

17. Another issue which requires consideration is that whether the appellants are entitled for reduction of pre-deposit from 50% to 25%. The appellants stated that they are facing serious financial hardship and NCLT, Delhi has already approved Resolution Plan on 11.06.2024 in relation to borrower which has stated to be implemented fully in terms of the order dated 08.05.2018 passed by NCLT, Delhi. The appellants being the mortgagors requested and prayed for sympathetic consideration for reduction of pre-deposit. The counsel for the respondents stated and argued that the appellants could not make out any case of hardship and are entities of means and such be directed to make the 50% of the amount as claimed in the subsequent sale notice as pre-deposit.

18. The appellants are mortgagors only and the claim of the respondent no.1 has also been addressed in the Resolution Plan. It is also on record that each of the

--- appellants has filed two appeals as detailed herein above. After considering all facts as detailed hereinabove, the each of the appellants is directed to make 35% of Rs.312,45,02,617/- as mentioned in the sale notice dated 26.09.2023 within four weeks from today. The applications for waiver of pre-deposits are decided accordingly.

List on 08.01.2027 for arguments.

(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain) Chairperson

-S