Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
MOHANLAL MUKHERJEE vs EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED on 17 September 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA**
**HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA CHAIRPERSON**
**Appeal Diary No. 645 of 2026**
Order No. 07 17.09.2026
Mohanlal Mukherjee & Another ... Appellants
-Vs-
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Another ... Respondents
Mr. Biswarup Mukherjee with Mr. Tanumoy Kar, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mukherjee with Mr. Sayak Ranjan Ganguly and Ms. Chaitali Acharjee, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/F.I.
Ms. Moumita Ghosh (Virtuall), Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
**THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:**
For Admission
I.A. 412 of 2026
Application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of 33 days delay in filing the appeal.
Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that the delay the delay is not intentional rather due to reasons beyond the control of the Appellant.
Instant appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 28<sup>th</sup> April, 2026 passed by Learned DRT-I, Kolkata dismissing the S.A. as infructuous.
Application for certified copy was filed on 27.4.2026 wherein assessment was made on 19.6.2026. Appeal was filed on 23.6.2026.
Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that there was no delay on the part of the Appellant.
Opposed by the Learned Counsel for Respondent.
Having considered the submission, I found the ground to be sufficient. Accordingly, I.A. 412 of 2026 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
I.A. 414 of 2026
Application praying for waiver from making pre-deposit.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that the Appellant is not liable to make any pre deposit as the impugned order was passed holding the S.A. as infructuous as challenge was made by the Appellant challenging the assignment in favour Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in **Sunshine Builders & Developers -vs- HDFC Bank Limited (2025 SCC OnLine 1234)**.
Learned Counsel for Respondent would submit that the Appellant is liable to make the pre deposit as per Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') that is a mandatory provision. The amount debt due as on 27.7.2026 is Rs.74,11,360.00.
Appeal is filed against the final judgment of the Learned DRT dismissing the S.A. It was not an order which could be said to be procedural in nature. Even the case of *Sunshine Builders* (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
*"One can understand that if any final order is passed by the DRT determining the liability of the borrower or any other liability of any person and an appeal is preferred under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Appellate Tribunal, the provisions of pre deposit would come into play."*
A Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in **Gade Sreenivas Reddy -vs- State Bank of India (2025 SCC OnLine TS 687)** has considered the issue of procedural order.
In the present case, Learned DRT categorically recorded a finding that the S.A. challenging Demand Notice dated 20<sup>th</sup> May, 2019 and Possession Notice dated 6.9.2019 are not maintainable.
As far as the issue of validity and legality of the assignment is concerned, that can only be looked into at the time of final hearing of the appeal. But at the stage of considering the issue of pre deposit, as required under Section 18 of the Act, only issue to be looked into as to whether the Appellant is required to make pre deposit or not.
In the present case, Appellant cannot take any advantage of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in *Sunshine Builders* (supra). At this stage Learned Counsel for Appellant would pray that the Appellant is an aged person of 76 years of age and is facing financial crunch hence the amount of the pre deposit may be reduced to 25%. Although amount of pre deposit should be 50% as per Section 18 of the Act but keeping in view the submission made by the Learned Counsel for Appellant amount of pre deposit is reduced to 35% of the debt due, i.e., Rs.74,11,360.00.
Accordingly, I.A. 414 of 2026 stands disposed of. Appellant is required to make pre deposit of 35% of Rs.74,11,360.00 within four weeks.
List on 12<sup>th</sup> November, 2026 for further orders.
I.A. 484 of 2026 shall be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal.
(Anil Kumar Srivastava, J) Chairperson
Dated: 17<sup>th</sup> September, 2026 04/ac